Police and Psychics

[chessmanskeptic]

Hey de_bunk, get posting fingers working. I need your opinion on this. Hey if you figure out what the equation means, I will give out the info on how to do remote viewing with cybershaman free version. :cool: Here is another hint: go to http://communities.anomalies.net and run my formula through a search.

[Brickroad]

Originally posted by glee
Brickroad isn't *specifically* asking for 100% success!
Read his post carefully:
'in which the psychic being tested had more successful hits than would be normal by sheer chance'

Naturally he wants scientific conditions, e.g. a double-blind experiment.


I apologize if I worded my question in such a way that it was difficult for you to understand, Luci. But it looks like glee put the ball back into play for me, and the questions I asked have now been (indirectly) answered to my satisfaction. I am now clear that your opinion on the subject is that police SHOULD seek the help of psychics in their investigations, but such evidence SHOULD NOT be admissible into a court of law.

To throw a curveball into a mix... I'm sure you are aware, Luci, that the source of evidence introduced into a criminal case occasionally comes under scrutiny. For example, a murder weapon discovered in a suspect's apartment may be thrown out of a case completely if it can be shown that the police did not obtain a warrant. Keep in mind, this sort of situation would inevitably lead to a psychic being asked to testify that his information is accurate in a court of law. I honestly don't see a way that we could allow psychics to lead police to evidence, but not allow them to admit such evidence into a court of law.

(I admit that I'm really not learned in the way of legal matters such as this, so if anyone can show that such a situation would NOT be likely to occur, please feel free to do so.)

I find it curious, though, that you seem so certain that there is credible evidence to support this type of psychic aid, but do not think it should be able to hold up in court. It seems to me that if psychic evidence could be shown to be a reliable source of information, there'd be no need to exclude it from a trial.

In other news, I admit I find it distressing that chessmanskeptic will achieve an avatar long before I will. Trolls and spam wizards have that advantage over me, I suppose. :(

[glee]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I have taken a look at the Ganzfeld data myself and I say that there is a slight chance that there might be something there.


Well any experiment runs the risk of randomness. If I say I can influence a roulette wheel, and you take me to a casino, then there will undoubtedly be an irregular sequence of red / black. If you (naively) ask me 'is that your power?', of course I'm going to reply affirmatively. :rolleyes:

By contrast, consider another invisible power on our lives - gravity. You can test for it anytime, anywhere. If near a massive body, you will detect it. If in space, you won't (at least not as strongly).
Why are psi powers so difficult to spot?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I take Ernie Vega's view on this. I think that remote viewing is caused by the person wanting to extend the conscious mind. We probably do this a lot in our sleep and never even realize it.


I'm sure we'd all like to 'extend the conscious mind'. I personally would like to leap tall buildings, because Superman gets lots of adulation. However there is zero evidence that anyone can.
As for the usefulness of 'We probably do this a lot in our sleep and never even realize it', I have an offer for you:

I am the President of the British Society of Levitation. :cool:
I can teach you to levitate! :eek:
Just send me lots of money, and I guarantee success.
(Small print on)
- you can only levitate if you believe in my teachings (because of the negative effect of disbelief on paranormal powers*)
- you can only levitate in your sleep
- no refunds to gullible people
(/Small print on)

* a well known effect, which is seen every time scientists test for psi powers...

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
The truth is that I think that MINERVA is going to slaughter all of these remote viewing kooks. This program supposedly will be able to make anyone have the ability of remote viewing. This program automatically conects you and automatically generates the coordinates. I personally have done remote viewing only by using Cybershaman. This is how I induced by first OBE and did my 1st remote viewing. I love the product to a point. I think the product has some potential in some areas.


Did you pay money for this product? (see above)

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I actually do have a $599 copy of Cybershaman, that I got for free.


Wow - you saved $599! (To think that some people paid for it - do you have their addresses, because they will probably want to levitate as well.)
And Cybershaman really worked for you...

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I found out the reason it did not work for me was that it did not clear my mind enough.


Lucky you didn't pay for it, then. Out of interest, was there a money-back guarantee?

Incidentally, why do you think the inventor of this magnificent technology doesn't pick up Randi's $1,000,000?
Think of the future sales of his $599 product. Why a genuine man would be rich!

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I personally think that Ernie is on vacation right now and that is why I have not received a reply from him in a while. I still have the info on how to remote view with Cybershaman if anyone wants to know.


Why don't you remote view Ernie, then? :confused:

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
Focus is the key to inderstanding. I seriously want all of you to try it this time.


Do I have to pay someone $599?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I pretty much gave up on it for a while then, well, I dusted off some old occult books I had and started reading them.


I like Buffy too. :)

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
Once after obtaining enough occult knowledge, I realized like Ernie Vega did, there has to be something there in order for this sh** to work.


Something where?
Do you mean humans must be gullible to pay $599 for something that doesn't work?
Good grief, we'll have Pyramid Schemes and Nigerian Bankers next! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
Here is the article I promised:
...human beings have a built in mechanism that demands explanations for everything they do not understand.


If that were true, why don't pupils listen all the time in School?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
As analytical beings we scrutinize our surroundings constantly. At some stage during our development we become comfortable with a set of circumstances and correlate them to a particular belief system. At this point we accept what we do not understand as a component of our comfort level. We rationalize what we do not understand in an attempt to deny our core realization that as a developing species, we are destined to always be ignorant about something.


Except scientists and researchers, presumably?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
Magic works, all forms of magic work. This fact has created a lot of confusion for a very long time.


The confusion is still there, since no-one has ever demonstrated magic under scientific testing.

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
It did not take the more astute people long to learn, that to become a practitioner of magic or a priest of some sort was a very rewarding position to be in.


It didn't take frausters long to realise people were gullible either.
How do you tell them apart?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
Why do all forms of Magic work?
Here is the answer folks and it's a no-brainer, Magic works because people have the ability to perform Magic, all people do.


I think you mean 'why does gravity work?' Because we can demonstrate gravity (unlike 'magic').

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
We do it every day, we even notice it but dismiss it as coincidence or just shrug.


Cite?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
Knowledge is power , but it takes time and effort to gain knowledge. The more knowledge you possess the more magic you can muster. It's a simple formula what you get out of it is in direct relation to what you put into it.


Gullibility is widespread, but it takes time and effort to gain money from suckers. The more chutzpah you possess the more money you can muster. It's a simple formula: what you get out of it is in direct relation to what you put into it.

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
We now know that lightning is not the weapon of an angry deity for the punishment of evil transgressions. We know that adrenaline can bestow "supernatural" strength. We know that the Bolivian workers who could walk for days without rest and tarry endlessly without the benefit of proper diet, were chewing coca leaves for a source of energy.


Indeed. And these things were discovered by scientists, not 'magicians'.

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
We have learned to build machines that can go faster than any species and fly higher and faster than any bird.


Absolutely. You can even book tickets over the Internet.

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
We can see though walls and read the minds of others.


Cite?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
We have realized that the weather is a global system and as such can be manipulated.


Cite?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
We have learned to communicate long distance without smoke, drums, carrier birds, or wires. We can go on forever listing these things. The point is all of these things were supernatural as recently as a 200 years ago, some as recently as 50 years ago.


Actually most of these things didn't exist 200 years ago. Of course crooks perpetrating frauds have been around forever.

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
In simpler terms magic is energy manipulation with the aid of the human mind/spirit in the absence of tangible tools with which to accomplish a given task.


Lovely. Errr...do you do demonstrations?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
So what is the secret?
The secret of the universe is Life Force. It's real, it can be measured, weighted and created by synthesis.


Cite?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
It's the most abundant component in the universe...


Not hydrogen then?

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
It is only a matter of time and some soul searching by the physics establishment before we understand Life Force and it's viable implications.


Perhaps we need some scientific searching first. How do we detect Life Force? (Can you sell us a detector?)

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
How did we get so confused?


When we stopped using scientific tests to decide if something exists.

[chessmanskeptic]

.

[chessmanskeptic]

Here is a link on the entire theory again, read all of it. And again I say, to the 1st person that figures out what corelates perfectly with my little math problem I will tell them how to remote view by using Cybershaman free version. Here is the link I told you about. I think Ernie is still on vacation though and that is why I have not seen anything of him lately. Here is the link, read it all and try to comprehend. Link: http://www.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bb...=35&t=000004&p=

Note: I think the boards are really laggy today so keep trying if it does not connect.

[glee]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
Hey so you know I am a rosicrucian and a christian gnostic. A true seeker of old and occult knowledge. Did you even bother to read all the material I had for you. Anyways this below is a statement of my beliefs.:


Well I'm a scientist and an sceptical atheist. A true seeker of all knowledge, using the incredibly accurate scientific method.
Did you bother to read my post? I asked you a lot of questions.

Here are some of them again:

Why are psi powers so difficult to spot?

Why don't you remote view Ernie, then?

How do we detect Life Force?

And some claims you made, which I would like cites for:

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic

- We do it (magic) every day, we even notice it but dismiss it as coincidence or just shrug.

- We can see though walls and read the minds of others.

- We have realized that the weather is a global system and as such can be manipulated.

- The secret of the universe is Life Force. It's real, it can be measured, weighted and created by synthesis.

[chessmanskeptic]

...

[Liamo]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
One example of detecting this "life force" energy is well, lets say the healing touch is an example

Chessmanskeptic,

Is it the same energy that can be detected by Therapeutic Touch practitioners?

Liam

[xouper]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
... to the 1st person that figures out what corelates perfectly with my little math problem ...You mean this one?

PHI * 9 / 50 + 11 = the anti-virus to the human program

Are you one of those Golden Ratio wackos, like Dan Winter?

[chessmanskeptic]

No I am not a golden ratio wacko, yet it is good for remote viewing in Cybershaman. More on that later. Anyways, the answer was the Sun Spot Cycle. It coorelates perfectly with it. Kind of interesting. It was a pure accident that I stumbled upon it. The truth is that almost all occult teachings depend on the idea of "life force" energy. The truth is that all people doing anything occult in nature from remote viewing to dowsing to creation of religion depends on this idea. The reason I have the equation posted in my sig is well, changes in sun spots effects human behavior. We do not like admiting this, but it is true. During a sun spot change everything from people to telecommunications is screwed up. The interesting thing is that PHI is extremely accurate when it comes to the sun spot cycle, right down to the last number in the equation. Kind of fun actually when you figure it out. Another fun thing I use Cybershaman for is the sudden realization of knowledge. I have experimented with the idea and well, that is how I cam up with the equation. I was just messing around with the interface then, well, lets just say the next day I woke up with this equation in my head. It is kind of scary, but it seems that knowledge is also some type of mind form. More on this later.

[chessmanskeptic]

....

[chessmanskeptic]

.........

[davidhorman]

CMS, your little sum comes out to 11.291246117749810727876

I've only found two sites that give a figure more accurate than "11 years" for the sunspot cycle:

Further work revealed that the length of successive sunspot cycles is not strictly constant but varies from to 11.5 years, with an average cycle period of about 10.8 years.

Sunspot counts rise and fall approximately every 11.1 years. The cycle, though, is not symmetrical

Where did you get your number from?

David

[chessmanskeptic]

...

[glee]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
Here is an article from a university that explains everything a little bit better that I have:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Medicine/Biofield.html

It is quite an interesting article. Have you read it? ;)

Here are some quotes from it (bolding mine):

'As modern science developed in the West and the nature of matter was gradually uncovered, a few scientists sought scientific evidence for the nature of the living force. ....
Newton and others who followed the same trail never managed to uncover a signal for a special substance of spirit or life.'

glee: And Newton was pretty clever...

'I must at least mention the highly celebrated recent publication in a major medical journal of the tests of Therapeutic Touch performed by the schoolgirl Emily Rosa (Rosa 1998). In this simple experiment, TT practitioners were unable to detect Emily's "energy field." It seems that not only is this field so transparent that no one can see it, the theory behind it is so transparent that even a child can see through it. '

glee: So this energy field can't be detected?

'The exact nature of the bioenergetic field is not specified, even as a speculative hypothesis, in Rogers or the other literature on holistic healing. On the one hand, the biofield seems to be identified with the classical electromagnetic field; on the other it is confused with quantum fields or wave functions.'

glee: We don't know what it is...

'Some self-desribed psychics claim that they can "see" a human aura. The claim has not been substantiated (Loftin 1990). '

glee: ...we can't detect it...

'Any fanciful shapes seen in photographed auras emanating from humans can be attributed to optical and photographic effects, uncorrelated with any property of the body that one might identify as "live" rather than "dead," and the tendency for people to see patterns where none exist. '

glee: ...even with photography...

'Now it would seem that all these effects of electromagnetic fields in living things would be easily detectable, given the great precision with which electromagnetic phenomena can be measured in the laboratory. Physics can measure the magnetic dipole moment of the electron (a measure of the strength of the electron's magnetic field) to one part in ten billion, and calculate it with the same accuracy. It surely should be able to detect any electromagnetic effects in the body powerful enough to move atoms around or do whatever happens in causing or curing disease. But either physics nor any other science has seen anything that demands we go beyond well established physical theories. No elementary particle or field has been found that is uniquely biological. None is even hinted at in our most powerful detectors. '


glee: ....or powerful detection devices that are incredibly sensitive.

'Proponents of alternative medicine would have far fewer critics among conventional scientists if they did not resort to this kind of dishonesty and foolishness.'

'The bioenergetic field described in holistic literature seems to be confused with the aether. Or, perhaps no confusion is implied. They each share at least one common feature - nonexistence.'

glee: What?! It doesn't exist?

'Much as we might wish otherwise, the fact remains that no unique living force has ever been conclusively demonstrated to exist in scientific experiments....
These claims simply do not follow from any reasonable application of scientific criteria. '

'Much of alternative medicine is based on claims that violate well established scientific principles. Those that require the existence of a bioenergetic field, whether therapeutic touch or acupuncture, should be asked to meet the same criteria as anyone else who claims a phenomenon whose existence goes beyond established science. They have an enormous burden of proof, and it is time that society laid it on their thin shoulders.'

glee: Apparently not.

Well this article explains that your 'life force' doesn't exist.
Do you have any other evidence for it?

P.S. Don't forget my other questions!

[chessmanskeptic]

...

[davidhorman]

It just cam to me like someone hitting me with a baseball bat. It was some kind of sudden knowledge.

So you don't know if it's anything like the length of the sunspot cycle. If the two figures I posted are anything to go by, pi^2+sqrt(2) is closer. So what's so special about your equation?

David

[chessmanskeptic]

...

[The Fool]

Hmmm, Chesmanskeptic seems to have way too much time on his hands and looks like becoming yet another high volume troll. Has some evil entity been cloning trolls lately?

[chessmanskeptic]

I only get timelike this on the weekends. During class time monday-friday, I usually do not post alot.

[davidhorman]

The truth is that the one I created is more occult in nature than anything else.

It certainly bears no real relation to the sunspot cycle. Any small number added to 11 will be, well, approximately 11 :rolleyes:

David

[Hannibal]

I am so glad I don't post on this thread anymore.....wait.....*post-modernist nausea creeps over*.....DAMN IT!

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy




Right, so there's no reason why the police don't do the same thing, when all else fails, it would be irresponsible not to.

No, your question was what would I do not what the police should do.

There is a clear difference. I would be prepared to spend all the money I had on following up any potential leads. The police can not do this as they do not have the resources. I wouldn’t want them wasting money on a crime that doesn’t affect me so how can I ask them to do it just because it does.

We will agree however that when a psychic can be found who can pass tests to prove that they produce results that are better than chance then the police will be silly not to use them. Lets keep our fingers crossed that one day one psychic will respect the victims of crime enough to put themselves forward for proper testing.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
hmmm thanks for the info. Like I said, I used Cybershaman with the help of creating this equation. The truth is that the one I created is more occult in nature than anything else. The idea of PHI is kind of fun. I have taken a look at Sacred Geometry. The truth is the idea of it is kind of taboo. It is geometry with the element of nature put into it. Plato and Pythagoras created the idea. Hey, these guys even created geometry. The works of Plato and Pythagoras are amazing. I personally go to this site for reference notes on sacred geometry: http://www.intent.com/sg/


I wonder what the Police Federation News Letter says about this? :D

[xouper]

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I have taken a look at Sacred Geometry. The truth is the idea of it is kind of taboo.I've looked at it too. Sacred geometry is to geometric shapes as numerology is to numbers. Sacred geometry is no more valid than numerology or astrology, i.e. it's bunk. Pythagoras was both a mathematician and a numerologist. Just because he got some math things right doesn't mean his numerology or sacred geometry has any merit. For example, the Pythgorean Theorem (in a right triangle, a^2 + b^2 = c^2) does not derive its merit because he said so, but rather because the proof stands on its own. The same cannot be said of numerology or sacred geometry, which are both devoid of any proofs whatsoever.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian


No, your question was what would I do not what the police should do.

There is a clear difference. I would be prepared to spend all the money I had on following up any potential leads. The police can not do this as they do not have the resources. I wouldn’t want them wasting money on a crime that doesn’t affect me so how can I ask them to do it just because it does.

We will agree however that when a psychic can be found who can pass tests to prove that they produce results that are better than chance then the police will be silly not to use them. Lets keep our fingers crossed that one day one psychic will respect the victims of crime enough to put themselves forward for proper testing.

If a remote viewer leads the police to a body or gives them information which leads to the police obtaining evidence, then that's all the testing that is necessary.

[chrisjt]

Posted by Lucianarchy:
No, just some of the available evidence from credible sources. Aside form accusing the woman of being involved in a joint police conspiracy or accusing her of being involved in the crime, what is your mundane explanation for her providing the correct nickname and her accuracy in reading the police officer's change of job.

Lucianarchy, I agree that cold-reading alone doesn’t adequately explain what's going on here, but combined with hot-reading and a biased recollection of the facts, I think this adds up to a far more reasonable explanation than communication with a dead woman who remembered where she left her cushions but forgot when she was murdered.

The first thing to establish is whether or not Tony Batters is reliable in reporting the facts. The following contradictory quotes would suggest not:

From the Police Federation magazine:
"However, of some 130 points Christine made, more than 120 now seem to have proved absolutely correct. Others could never be confirmed or disproved. "

But in "Psychic News" the figures become even more impressive:
"In fact out of the 150 specific details she provided, the only discrepancy was that she gave the wrong date for the crime, an easy mistake to make at the best of times. "

And one detail provided by Mr. Batters is either incorrect or casts extreme doubt on his critical thinking abilities-
"we initially thought the incident had taken place in the lounge, but she insisted it started in the bathroom. There was an overturned rug there, and a towel-rail had been pulled from the wall, later confirmed to us as very recent damage."

But it's not just what's stated that's at fault, it's also what isn't. The most glaring omission is that the alleged Psychic lived just 10 minutes walk from the victim. The conclusion that Holohan probably obtained information about Jackie Poole from friends or neighbours(or from Jackie herself…before she died of course) is obvious. Another missing, yet important detail is that Anthony Ruark was Jackie's lover(making Holohan’s knowledge of his nickname a lot less impressive). He was also a known criminal and would have been a prime suspect.

There is no need to even mention allegations of police conspiracies or the woman’s involvement in the crime except as an exercise in straw-man building.

[Brickroad]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

If a remote viewer leads the police to a body or gives them information which leads to the police obtaining evidence, then that's all the testing that is necessary.

This is a dangerous way of thinking, and here's a very simple scenario which shows why:

A man rapes and kills a woman he has never met. There are no witnesses, no evidence, and he has done a well enough job hiding the body that the police go for six months without finding it. One day, after the news has stopped running headlines and the dead woman is forgotten by all but her family, this man decides to make a name for himself by telling law enforcement that he has found the body via remote viewing. People are baffled as to how he obtained this knowledge.

In this case, and many simpler and less dramatic situations, the fact that remote viewing is claimed to be the reason evidence is found is not sufficient proof that it is so.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Brickroad


This is a dangerous way of thinking, and here's a very simple scenario which shows why:

A man rapes and kills a woman he has never met. There are no witnesses, no evidence, and he has done a well enough job hiding the body that the police go for six months without finding it. One day, after the news has stopped running headlines and the dead woman is forgotten by all but her family, this man decides to make a name for himself by telling law enforcement that he has found the body via remote viewing. People are baffled as to how he obtained this knowledge.

In this case, and many simpler and less dramatic situations, the fact that remote viewing is claimed to be the reason evidence is found is not sufficient proof that it is so.

Police are professional detectives and use DNA to secure evidence in cases like this, anyone who provdided location evidence would be asked to give a DNA sample.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by chrisjt
Posted by Lucianarchy:


Lucianarchy, I agree that cold-reading alone doesn’t adequately explain what's going on here, but combined with hot-reading and a biased recollection of the facts, I think this adds up to a far more reasonable explanation than communication with a dead woman who remembered where she left her cushions but forgot when she was murdered.

The first thing to establish is whether or not Tony Batters is reliable in reporting the facts. The following contradictory quotes would suggest not:

From the Police Federation magazine:
"However, of some 130 points Christine made, more than 120 now seem to have proved absolutely correct. Others could never be confirmed or disproved. "

But in "Psychic News" the figures become even more impressive:
"In fact out of the 150 specific details she provided, the only discrepancy was that she gave the wrong date for the crime, an easy mistake to make at the best of times. "

And one detail provided by Mr. Batters is either incorrect or casts extreme doubt on his critical thinking abilities-
"we initially thought the incident had taken place in the lounge, but she insisted it started in the bathroom. There was an overturned rug there, and a towel-rail had been pulled from the wall, later confirmed to us as very recent damage."

But it's not just what's stated that's at fault, it's also what isn't. The most glaring omission is that the alleged Psychic lived just 10 minutes walk from the victim. The conclusion that Holohan probably obtained information about Jackie Poole from friends or neighbours(or from Jackie herself…before she died of course) is obvious. Another missing, yet important detail is that Anthony Ruark was Jackie's lover(making Holohan’s knowledge of his nickname a lot less impressive). He was also a known criminal and would have been a prime suspect.

There is no need to even mention allegations of police conspiracies or the woman’s involvement in the crime except as an exercise in straw-man building.

You make to many leaps of faith for a skeptic, these people are professional detectives not reporters for a local rag, do you even understand how serious withholding evidence is? LOL! You also fail to mention how CR could have provided the specific detail given regarding the police officer on the case.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


You make to many leaps of faith for a skeptic, these people are professional detectives not reporters for a local rag, do you even understand how serious withholding evidence is? LOL! You also fail to mention how CR could have provided the specific detail given regarding the police officer on the case.

Been there done that. The other thing I noted was that the interview took place some days after the murder. Newspapers would have certianly given some details and many people would have visited the murder scene.

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Police are professional detectives and use DNA to secure evidence in cases like this, anyone who provdided location evidence would be asked to give a DNA sample.

I am not stirring the pot but this is not technically true. Police can only request a sample. The only time a sample can be taken without consent is after the individual has been charged.

There have been cases where the only evidence was DNA that was "illegally" held on file by the Police. The accused walked away because the DNA was rendered inadmissable. It may suck, but dems da facts ma'am:)

[chrisjt]

Posted by Luciananarchy:
You make to many leaps of faith for a skeptic, these people are professional detectives not reporters for a local rag, do you even understand how serious withholding evidence is? LOL! You also fail to mention how CR could have provided the specific detail given regarding the police officer on the case.

The only "leap of faith" I make is that It's easier to obtain information from living people than from dead ones.
And where did I mention anyone withholding evidence?

I didn't mention the police officer's cold reading because because it had already been mentioned in other posts.

[glee]

Lucianarchy,

Firstly I did ask some time ago for references to the quotes you posted (by Jessica Utts), what the J of Sci Exp stands for and whether it's available online.

Also what theories are there about how these powers work.

Please could you reply - you did say you would offer the evidence to anyone interested.

Secondly you have claimed that 'police use psychics'. I do have some contacts at Scotland Yard and will certainly ask them if you want me to.

But an examination of this website:

http://www.met.police.uk/index.shtml

shows no evidence of it.

Some extracts (bolding and comments mine):

'The Notorious Dr Crippen
The shocking case of a murdered wife which provided a historic instance of a criminal being caught with the aid of radio.

>glee: The police are happy to acknowledge first use of new technology / techniques. No mention of psychics.

>glee: A list of their supporting units:

'Traffic, Air Support, Public Order, Mounted Branch and Thames Division, which polices London's main waterway'

The British Transport Police, who are responsible for policing on the rail and tube systems;
The City of London Police, who cover the area within the boundaries of the Corporation of London;
and the Royal Parks Constabulary, who patrol some of London's major parks'

'The London Fire Brigade
The London Ambulance Service
The London Emergency Services Liaison Panel'

>glee: No mention of any psychic organisation (is there one?)

'Assistant Commissioner Michael Todd - responsible for Territorial Policing
Assistant Commissioner David Veness - responsible for Specialist Operations
Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur - responsible for Policy Review and Standards
Assistant Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe - Director of Personnel
Keith Luck - Director of Resources
Dick Fedorcio - Director of Public Affairs'

>glee: which one of these would psychic informants come under?

[Hannibal]

Actually to be fair we have now established that Luci is saying "Police use info provided by Psychics". This is a far more general statement to discuss. Everyone knows already that Police do not employ psychics or consult them.

[whitefork]

I believe the correct formulation is

Police use info provided by "psychics".

Try this:

Everyone has lied at some time.

Therefore police use information provided by liars.

Is there a fallacy here?

[Hannibal]

I believe my position is more than clear. However, I was trying to clarify what Luci is claiming so that the debate does not degenerate into a "I did not say that..." debacle.

refer to my Ybo example to see what I mean.

[whitefork]

Dr. Lechter, I wasn't trying to argue with you. Just offering what I thought was another version of Luci's fallacy.

[Hannibal]

Don't worry, I've already eaten!:D

Sorry i should have made myself clearer when I replied. I responded to what I thought was a question to me..damn my ego!

Apologies whitefork...perhaps you would like to come to dinner?....pthpthpthpthpth....:D

[whitefork]

I'll bring the Chianti and the fava beans.

[Hannibal]

LOL:D

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by chrisjt
[BThe most glaring omission is that the alleged Psychic lived just 10 minutes walk from the victim. The conclusion that Holohan probably obtained information about Jackie Poole from friends or neighbours(or from Jackie herself…before she died of course) is obvious. Another missing, yet important detail is that Anthony Ruark was Jackie's lover(making Holohan’s knowledge of his nickname a lot less impressive). He was also a known criminal and would have been a prime suspect.[/B]


So now we have the possibility of the 'psychic' having first hand knowledge of both the victim and the accused. So why would anyone take this case as proof of psychic powers? There are clearly alternative explanations for the events are described.

This case gets less mysterious by the minute. It's a pretty weak case for psychic crime solving.

Luci posted earlier that she/he had worked for 12 years for the home office as an expert witness, dealing with hundreds of officers.

So how about a list of the top ten crimnes solved by psychic powers?

[glee]

Originally posted by Hannibal
Actually to be fair we have now established that Luci is saying "Police use info provided by Psychics". This is a far more general statement to discuss. Everyone knows already that Police do not employ psychics or consult them.

Ok, I'll discuss that!

How about considering the level of confidence police have in various methods of investigation, and various types of evidence.

Let's rate:

- asking for a description
- collecting forensic evidence from the crime scene
- interviewing suspects
- searching crime databases
- profiling offenders
- using psychics

and also evaluate:

- forensic evidence (e.g. fingerprints or DNA)
- eye-witnesses at an identity parade
- confessions
- lie detectors
- alibi evidence
- psychic testimony

in terms of frequency of use and reliability....

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Luci posted earlier that she/he had worked for 12 years for the home office as an expert witness, dealing with hundreds of officers.

So how about a list of the top ten crimnes solved by psychic powers?

Sound of leaves slowly rustling on wooden floor..........

[The Fool]

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Luci posted earlier that she/he had worked for 12 years for the home office as an expert witness, dealing with hundreds of officers.


Ron, can you point me to this, I must have missed it?


LUCI, LUCI, LUCI....please say it isn't true!!! If you made this claim exactly what sort of "Expert" were you.... I cannot recall any legal case where the crown or the defence have called an "expert" witness in the areas of parapsychology, psi or spoon bending. Can you give us some details?

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I usually ignore your posts these days, full, as they are, with anecdotal nonsense and flim-flam. So what if you were a police officer, you have been shown that your claim about how 'psychics' are treated is wrong. You were ill informed or ignorant, I don't particularly care which, but wrong, you are. But let me tell you this, sonny, not only have I spent over 12 years working for the Home Office assessing criminal cases, interviewing suspects, offenders and victims, in custody suites and on the streets and homes where these people live, actually *being* an expert witness, with thousands of hours of Crown Court work. Not only that, I have worked *alongside* hundreds of police officers, worked in over thirty different police stations, from all over the country, on all sorts of criminal cases, from all areas of specialism. I *know* I have a far, *far* reaching depth of experience than you. But in the case of these discussions here on this board, it is completely irrelevant, which is why I ahven't brought it up, personal anecdotal stuff is worthless in a forum debate using a skeptical analysis, as has been shown by your ill infomed nonsense about how the police alledgedly treat 'psychics'. I realise it is very important for you to have people around you who will 'believe' what you say, and agree with you, but this is a forum on skepticism, not the school playground. So I suggest you grow up a little bit and stick to the facts actually being discussed, not what you claim is your 'personal experience'. That's what UFO abductees do.

"pokie" How common is that?

Fool,

This is the full text of a post by Luci on page 5 of this thread. Last edited on 19th September.

Thousands of hours on crown court work! That about as many hours as she/he spends posting on this board.

[glee]

Originally posted by The Fool
LUCI, LUCI, LUCI....please say it isn't true!!! If you made this claim exactly what sort of "Expert" were you.... I cannot recall any legal case where the crown or the defence have called an "expert" witness in the areas of parapsychology, psi or spoon bending. Can you give us some details?

To be fair, Luci doesn't say what her speciality is.
Courts need doctors, probation officers etc.

I'm certain they don't count any form of psi as an expert witness.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by glee


To be fair, Luci doesn't say what her speciality is.
Courts need doctors, probation officers etc.

I'm certain they don't count any form of psi as an expert witness.

Toilet attendants, cleaners, tea ladies,..........yes I can see a role for someone of Luci's talents.

[glee]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
Toilet attendants, cleaners, tea ladies,..........yes I can see a role for someone of Luci's talents.

I'm newish, so don't understand this sarcasm.
Is Luci not highly rated?

P.S. Ronsceptic, if your location is accurate, we can't be more than 50 miles apart. I'm posting from Oakham....

[Lothian]

Originally posted by glee


I'm newish, so don't understand this sarcasm.
Is Luci not highly rated?



Depends on what the scale is measuring.

[xouper]

Originally posted by glee
I'm newish, so don't understand this sarcasm.
Is Luci not highly rated?Lothian said it best, "Depends on what the scale is measuring."

Luci is one of this forum's highest rated kooks. It's been suggested before that we have a FAQ about these things, but in Luci's case, it would take pages and pages to describe all of her kookiness. Don't be fooled by her momentary lapses into normalcy. I predict Luci will demand I post evidence for my assertions, despite the fact that she and the other regulars around here have already seen such evidence a bazillion times and are bored to death of it.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by glee


I'm newish, so don't understand this sarcasm.
Is Luci not highly rated?

P.S. Ronsceptic, if your location is accurate, we can't be more than 50 miles apart. I'm posting from Oakham....

Glee,

Take a look at Luci's webpage where you will find out what she/he believes in plus an pretty lame attack on Randi...


Super Woo Woo (http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/)


We are prety close neighbours, I'm in Market Harborough! :)


Regards,
Ron.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


Luci posted earlier that she/he had worked for 12 years for the home office as an expert witness, dealing with hundreds of officers.

So how about a list of the top ten crimnes solved by psychic powers?

Sound of church bell chiming softly in the distance........

[RonSceptic]

The gentle patter of rain on the skylight.......
All else is silence.


I guess ther just arn't any cases solved by psychics then.

What a suprise.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
The gentle patter of rain on the skylight.......
All else is silence.


I guess ther just arn't any cases solved by psychics then.

What a suprise.

Ron, Luci is right and you are it is you that is wrong (http://www.salemweb.com/memorial/default.htm)

John Indian baked a witch cake made with rye meal and the afflicted girls' urine. This counter-magic was meant to reveal the identities of the "witches" to the afflicted girls.

[glee]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
Take a look at Luci's webpage where you will find out what she/he believes in plus an pretty lame attack on Randi...

Super Woo Woo (http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/)

Regards,
Ron.

Dear Ron,

I did visit Luci's homepage.

There was a remote viewing test.

I couldn't resist taking it. (Obviously some psychic part of me took control.)

On the first two tests, I scored 77 and 76%!

Either I am psychic....

...or by typing exactly the same stuff each time (people, buildings etc), I have exposed the method of assessing as unreliable.

(ghostly music ON)
Only you can say....

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Lothian


Ron, Luci is right and you are it is you that is wrong (http://www.salemweb.com/memorial/default.htm)



LOL!
THank you pointing out the error of my ways!:D

I guess ther were lots of folk with Luci's mind set in the seventeenth century.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by glee


Dear Ron,

I did visit Luci's homepage.

There was a remote viewing test.

I couldn't resist taking it. (Obviously some psychic part of me took control.)

On the first two tests, I scored 77 and 76%!

Either I am psychic....

...or by typing exactly the same stuff each time (people, buildings etc), I have exposed the method of assessing as unreliable.

(ghostly music ON)
Only you can say....

I'd say you have about as much psychic power as Luci has.;)

[glee]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
I'd say you have about as much psychic power as Luci has.;)

(ghostly music ON)
I knew you were going to say that....

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by glee


(ghostly music ON)
I knew you were going to say that....

Yes, so did I. I guess we are both as powerful as Luci.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


Oh yes, we all know who shy these mediums are don't we! When have you ever heard of a medium writing books or appearing on TV?

Talk about lame excuses!:D !

Some a tiny minority do write books, sure, but the majority, like supergrasses, would prefere to keep their identity hidden. Do you really think they would want to become an underworld target? The police are quite right in keeping psychics out of the legal arena.

[Desianarchy]

Lucy, honey, most of the nice folks here think it would be better if you laid off that there "supergrass" for a while.

Those nice Cuban cigars in the back of the closet have enough kick for now.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Some a tiny minority do write books, sure, but the majority, like supergrasses, would prefere to keep their identity hidden. Do you really think they would want to become an underworld target? The police are quite right in keeping psychics out of the legal arena.

So the underworld are responsible for all crime. Missing schoolchilden? No underworld conflict there.

Not one single case presented by Luci.

Perhaps the only reason psychics are kept out to the legal arena is that they have nothing to offer.

[RonSceptic]

Luci,

How come no medium has been able to assertain from the victims of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley where they are buried?

Given the misery that the victims families have been going through for thirty odd years you would have thought that the victims would want to clear this matter up.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
Luci,

How come no medium has been able to assertain from the victims of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley where they are buried?

Given the misery that the victims families have been going through for thirty odd years you would have thought that the victims would want to clear this matter up.

It doesn't work like that. A psychic can't help who comes to him/her and what information they offer, but I can say dearie I have a man here for you, a tall man ,he sayes that he is well and to be careful in business.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Lothian


It doesn't work like that. A psychic can't help who comes to him/her and what information they offer, but I can say dearie I have a man here for you, a tall man ,he sayes that he is well and to be careful in business.


.....and I see a sea journey ahead....

Do you mean a plane journey? I'm taking a plane trip tomorrow.

.....Well, the plane will fly over the sea.....

What? There's sea between London and Machester?

.....er well a there are a few canals?, a coupe of rivers, and a swimming pool or two.....

Phew. amazing!

[Lucianarchy]

Cold Reading is not an explanation with credible scientific evidence to support its claims.

[xouper]

Lucianarchy: Cold Reading is not an explanation with credible scientific evidence to support its claims. Talking to the Dead is not an explanation with credible scientific evidence to support its claims.

[glee]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Cold Reading is not an explanation with credible scientific evidence to support its claims.

Well let's see:

- there are books teaching you how to do cold reading
- there are experts who have astonished audiences with cold reading (Ian Rowlands for example)
- there is a scientific explanation for cold reading (use standard techniques to give likely generalisations for unhappy bereaved people, who will grasp at anything that gives them comfort)

So cold reading is just like any other magic trick - the principles behind it are clear, and so is the reason it works.

Alas there is no such evidence for psychics...

[Lucianarchy]

Glee, the cold reraders are unable to replicate the same feats under the same conditions, as the mediums. There is no scientific evidence to support your claim. Other skeptics have confirmed this already in another thread - re the 'silent' sittings of Dr Schwartz experiments.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Glee, the cold reraders are unable to replicate the same feats under the same conditions, as the mediums. There is no scientific evidence to support your claim. Other skeptics have confirmed this already in another thread - re the 'silent' sittings of Dr Schwartz experiments.

Uh, Luci, what experiments are you referring to? You say that cold readers have been unable to replicate the same feats under the same conditions. So, you are saying that experiments were done with cold readers and the cold readers were not able to replicate the feats of the mediums. Which experiments were cold readers actually involved in?

Or are you drawing this conclusion based on that the fact that cold readers did not participate in the experiments? Because if that is the case, there is no way you can draw such a bold conclusion. The absence of cold readers in an experiment does not mean that they can't replicate what mediums do.

By your logic, I can conclude that mediums have no psychic abilities because they don't take the JREF million dollar challenge. Are you comfortable with this conclusion? You must be since it is very similar to the conclusion you have drawn.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Uh, Luci, what experiments are you referring to? You say that cold readers have been unable to replicate the same feats under the same conditions.

Indeed. It has now been confirmed that Cold Readers have been unable to replicate the same feats under the same conditions.
Even the magician and cold reader Russ Horowitz told Dr Scwartz something to the effect that he and other CR's were unable to produce the same effects without some form of dialogue with the sitter. When he viewed the mediums, he again was unable to identify any CR technique.

[xouper]

Lucianarchy: It has now been confirmed that Cold Readers have been unable to replicate the same feats under the same conditions.Wrong. You'll have to show better evidence than that to satisfy us true skeptics.

[Clancie]

Just to add to the record that some police departments do say they were greatly helped by psychics....

Noreen Reiner teaches at the FBI academy, and she is referred by the FBI to police departments around the country.

Patricia Gagliardo is another psychic who works with the police. Here are three testimonials about her:

"Our police department has used Ms. Gagliardo very successfully; through her psychic abilities we were able to close previously unresolved cases. I am satisfied with the fact that she is a true psychic. I can personally vouch for her integrity, honesty and moral character and would and have referred her to other police agencies in the country."

-Lt. Lawrence Fawcett, Coventry Police Dept. CT
"Pat Gagliardo is regularly consulted in homicide cases when all other available leads have been exhausted. I am at a loss to explain the phenomenon she possesses, however, the information received is credible and a solving factor in several cases. This officer will always remain indebted to Ms. Gagliardo for her assistance."

-William C. Gavitt, Deputy Chief, New London Police Dept. CT
"I watched in total disbelief and amazement as scratches appeared on the tops of Mrs. Gagliardo's hands while she performed psychometry on the bracelet of one of the missing girls. I also saw the scratches disappear! The missing and murdered girls were found exactly as she described they would be, and with their hands bound in wire! Mrs. Gagliardo made an instant believer out of me and I have recommended her to other police agencies."

-Detective Tom Williams, Wheeling Police Dept. Wheeling, WV

[xouper]

Clancy: Noreen Reiner teaches at the FBI academy, and she is referred by the FBI to police departments around the country. That's total bullsh*t. What's your source for this?

Patricia Gagliardo is another psychic who works with the police. Here are three testimonials about her:Those "testimonials" are from Ms Gagliardo's own personal website. I would hardly consider that an unbiased source. Got anything better than just her word for it?

She also calls herself a "Police-Accredited Clairvoyant & Medium."

Yeah, right. Since when do police "accredit" psychics?

[Clancie]

That's total bullsh*t. What's your source for this?
Well, the quote was from an interview (between Reiner and the self-described skeptical reporter) on Court TV (check the web-based interview). Naturally, I'd love to see the contrary facts that lead you to so confidently (arrogantly) call the reporter's introduction of Reiner "total bullsh*t.

While we're waiting for you to come up with that...here's a partial list of police departments she's worked with (from her website. Yes, naturally, if you have facts to the contrary, please provide them....)
Law Enforcement Lectures and Classes
(Noreen Reiner, A Partial List)

Florida Division of International Association for Identification Orlando, Florida

The 2nd International Seminar on Advancing The Scientific Investigation of Crimes Durham, England (Sponsored by THE BRITISH COUNCIL)

Sarasota Police Department Sarasota, Florida

St. Louis County & Municipal Police Academy Wellston, Missouri

Southwest Florida Criminal Justice Academy Fort Myers, Florida

Law Enforcement & Corrections Third International Conference Miami, Florida

Central Florida Criminal Justice Institute Orlando, Florida

Institute of Police Technology & Management Jacksonville, Florida

The Virginia Bureau of Forensic Science Richmond, Virginia

F.B.I. Academy Quantico, Virginia

Peninsula/Tidewater Regional Academy of Criminal Justice Hampton, Virginia

[Clancie]

And, Xouper, as far as Pat Gagliardo's credentials, you say...

Those "testimonials" are from Ms Gagliardo's own personal website. I would hardly consider that an unbiased source. Got anything better than just her word for it?
Actually, she quotes real people from real police departments. That's not quite like just giving her own word for it. These law enforcement officials were willing to be quoted on her website in support of her abilities.

What do you have to show these psychics--or the police--are lying? Or do you actually have evidence that they're just making it all up? If so, please provide it (I would also think the police departments would be interested in it.....)

She also calls herself a "Police-Accredited Clairvoyant & Medium."

Actually, Xouper, you're missing the point. I'm not saying, "Wow! Pat Gagliardo!!!! Noreen Reiner!!!! They're the greatest!!!" I'm just saying here are two examples of psychics who have provide specific references about their work with the police. If you know these references to have been checked and proven false, please supply the sources for that. I've looked and haven't seen any.

Otherwise, I think these two psychics should be given credit for providing specific testimonials and lists of police they have worked with, apparently with very satisfactory results. If you have facts to debunk them (as you apparently do, calling it "bullsh*t"), please, go ahead and share them.

[xouper]

Clancy: Noreen Reiner teaches at the FBI academy, and she is referred by the FBI to police departments around the country.

xouper: That's total bullsh*t. What's your source for this?

Clancy: Well, the quote was from an interview (between Reiner and the self-described skeptical reporter) on Court TV (check the web-based interview). Naturally, I'd love to see the contrary facts that lead you to so confidently (arrogantly) call the reporter's introduction of Reiner "total bullsh*t.That's your source? That's all you have? Give me a break. That proves nothing.

The FBI has said they do not use psychics and they do not refer psychics to any police department.

Show me an FBI source that says Noreen Reiner teaches at the FBI Academy.

Since these are your claims, it's up to you to prove them. In the meantime, I am entitled to express my opinion that your claims about Reiner are bullsh*t.

BTW, a google search of "court tv" and "noreen reiner" results in no hits. Got a link?

While we're waiting for you to come up with that...here's a partial list of police departments she's worked with (from her website. Yes, naturally, if you have facts to the contrary, please provide them....)First of all, where are the facts to support YOUR claims? And secondly, based on her lies about her involvement with the Williston, FL police department, her word is essentially worthless that she has solved any case for any police department. Do you have any independent evidence at all? Can you cite even a single case that she has solved for any of those police departments and how she solved it?

Actually, she [Gagliardo] quotes real people from real police departments. That's not quite like just giving her own word for it. These law enforcement officials were willing to be quoted on her website in support of her abilities. And how do you know those are legitimate quotes? Are we supposed to take your word for it? Or hers? I don't think so. On the Larry King Live show Sylvia Browne cited a police officer by name that she claimed to have worked with, which turned out to be false. What makes your two examples any different?

I'm just saying here are two examples of psychics who have provide specific references about their work with the police.What specific references? What cases? What information did they give that solved the cases? OK, so they say they have worked with the police. So what. Doesn't prove they helped solve any cases.

If you know these references to have been checked and proven false, please supply the sources for that. I've looked and haven't seen any. I mentioned one above. Noreen Reiner and the Williston police. That was proven false. Noreen did not solve that case.

Otherwise, I think these two psychics should be given credit for providing specific testimonials and lists of police they have worked with, apparently with very satisfactory results.I disagree. What satisfactory results? With no details and no proof, I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt or any credit.

If you have facts to debunk them (as you apparently do, calling it "bullsh*t"), please, go ahead and share them.Maybe you'd like to take a look at Joe Nickell's book, Psychic Sleuths: ESP and Sensational Cases.

[xouper]

xouper: BTW, a google search of "court tv" and "noreen reiner" results in no hits. Got a link?Of course, it would help if I spelled the name correctly. I had used your spelling instead of the correct one.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/psychic.html

So, the chat moderator said she teaches at the FBI Academy. Why should should we take his word for it, since it seems obvious that he could simply have repeated what he was told by Renier?

[Clancie]

Xouper,

Your comment tries to discredits Renier's work with the police (which I didn't mention), not the FBI connection (which I did). You've not cast any doubt so far on the specific police testimonials from Gagliardo either. Also, what does Nickell specifically have to say about these two psychics' claims that I've mentioned?

If he says nothing about these points above, then its kind of silly to mention his book as if its relevant, isn't it? (And how do you know I haven't read it?)

Please remember, I'm not making claims about these two psychics. I am passing on the publicly posted references about their work because it may not be as easy to dismiss as total fabrication as some people here would like to do.

It seems discrediting these sources should be an easy job (just takes a phone call, right? Just like with Sylvia's claim, which was discredited almost immediately). But I haven't seen anyone do it.

If you have, you should share it.

Here are the links:

renier's website
http://nrenier.members.atlantic.net/index.html
________
interview with renier on court tv:
http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/psychic.html
________
pat gagliardo police testimonial page
http://www.patgagliardo.com/testimonial.htm
________
article at skeptic site discussing government use of psychics.
http://www.skepticism.net/discussion/fullthread

The original article about the FBI and psychics was cited in the London Sunday Times, November 11, 2002, but the Times only archives free to the public for 7 days. However, their article been much discussed and cited elsewhere. I'm sure you can find numerous other references to it, if this doesn't suffice. Its also well established that the US Intelligence agencies have used remote viewers (psychics) in the past. If you doubt that, do a search and you'll see much about it.

[Clancie]

Trying that last link again. If it still doesn't work, just go to skepticism.net and search as "Psychics and the FBI".

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000010.html

[Pyrrho]

http://members.aol.com/garypos/Renier_chap_pt2.html


However, Robert Ressler testified in his deposition that Renier's claim to having worked as a psychic for the FBI "is not true from the standpoint of being a paid employee and is not true from the standpoint of her being on a retainer or being used in any regular capacity. She does not work on FBI cases." (17) Added Ressler, "Merrell wanted to know whether the FBI used psychics in our investigative process. And I told him that was absolutely something I wouldn't discuss, but, in reality, we don't." (18) Additionally, Renier was compelled to modify her promotional literature as a result of a reproach by Ressler, who testified that she had claimed "that she was an instructor for the FBI, something along that line, and I told her she could not say that." (19)

[xouper]

Clancy: Your comment tries to discredits Renier's work with the police (which I didn't mention), not the FBI connection (which I did).Then I assume you are retracting your earlier claim when you said, "Just to add to the record that some police departments do say they were greatly helped by psychics..." and then you immediately mentioned Renier's name. I see pyrrho2000 posted the cite confirming that Renier did not work for the FBI nor was she an instructor at the FBI Academy.

You've not cast any doubt so far on the specific police testimonials from Gagliardo either.And you haven't established that they are legitimate. It's not incumbant upon me to disprove your claims.

Please remember, I'm not making claims about these two psychics. I am passing on the publicly posted references about their work because it may not be as easy to dismiss as total fabrication as some people here would like to do.OK, then if all you are doing is repeating the claims made by those two alleged psychics, then I choose to simply dismiss those claims as self-serving and unsubstantiated. Apparently you are not going to offer any proof otherwise.

[Clancie]

Interesting, Pyrrho2000. Would you please post your source?

Two reasons the source seems particularly important. First, these quotes seem a bit equivocating to me and I'd like to see the context:
"Renier's claim to having worked as a psychic for the FBI is not true from the standpoint of being a paid employee"
"..and is not true from the standpoint of her being on a retainer or being used in any regular capacity."
Added Ressler, "Merrell wanted to know whether the FBI used psychics in our investigative process. And I told him that was absolutely something I wouldn't discuss".
Then it sounds like in this interview (when he was not under oath any more) he added, "but, in reality, we don't (use psychics)." Sounds like he added it after the fact, but wouldn't say it in his deposition. I'd like to see if that's the case.

Also, whatever your source, it states:
Additionally, Renier was compelled to modify her promotional literature as a result of a reproach by Ressler, who testified that she had claimed "that she was an instructor for the FBI, something along that line, and I told her she could not say that."
Again, why doesn't Ressler just bluntly say, "The FBI doesn't work with psychics and we have never used Ms. Renier in any capacity whatsoever." Why all the careful phrasing with the potential for relationships that are being left out of the description?

This suspicion is heightened by the fact that Renier's website still apparently is allowed to post both of these statements:
"In 1981, when Psychic Investigator, Noreen Renier first lectured at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia...."
And, quoting Ressler himself:
"...She helped to locate a plane containing the body of a relative of an FBI agent." Robert Ressler, Ex-FBI
So, again, what's your source for the Ressler information?

[The Fool]

Inspector Fool from the psychic police wants to know what you were all doing at the time this dead Lucianarcy thread was dug up again. If you don't answer now I can always take you ALL down to the station and get out the Tarot cards...I'll get to the bottom of this....

[Smalso]

Is it all that surprising that any organization--police, FBI, CIA--that has so much faith in the polygraph as a forensic tool would have any problem using psychics?

[Lucianarchy]

"On March 24, 1994, a sixty-six-year-old man named Norman Lewis left his house in Williston, Florida, in his truck and simply disappeared. He left behind his wallet and various personal items, which he would have been expected to take if he was going on a long trip. The case baffled the local police. Williston is a small town, and the police initially thought this would be a simple case which be cleared up relatively quickly.

Despite hundreds of leads, after two years the police and Lewis's family were nowhere near finding out what had happened to him. It was at this point that the family suggested the police contact a psychic detective.

Luckily for the family, Detective Brian Hewitt, who had worked with the Williston police, had recently attended a conference where psychic detective Noreen Renier had lectured. Hewitt was impressed by Renier and decided to recommend her services to the Lewis family."

JREF moderator 'Ed' checked verified that the police did in fact get help from Noreen Renier:

"I spoke to Sgt. Hewitt a few minutes ago. To lhis credit, he believes that this chick helped. - JREF Moderator 'Ed'.

[xouper]

Lucianarchy: JREF moderator 'Ed' checked verified that the police did in fact get help from Noreen Renier: "I spoke to Sgt. Hewitt a few minutes ago. To lhis credit, he believes that this chick helped." - JREF Moderator 'Ed'. Predictably, Luci once again trots out a detail that has been totally refuted a million times over. Noreen Renier did not provide any information that solved this case, regardless what Sgt Hewitt said, as anyone can plainly verify by looking at the case itself. Luci is nothing more than a lame broken record. Get some new material, Luci.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Clancy
Interesting, Pyrrho2000. Would you please post your source?



The source is Gary Posner. His article is available at the URL listed in my post above:

http://members.aol.com/garypos/Renier_chap_pt2.html

Posner quotes from Resslers sworn court testimony in the Merrell case; Ressler was not interviewed by Posner.

http://members.aol.com/garypos/reply_Duffie.html


Duffie: "Posner took another approach. This is really paranormal. I quote: 'When I called the FBI Academy, I was informed that Robert Ressler has since retired from duty.' Naturally Posner would contact Ex-FBI Agent Ressler at his home? He is in business and is listed in the directories. But, no. He never did. Instead he questioned Supervisory Special Agent Richard Ault . . . "

Response: When I called the FBI, neither the initial person with whom I spoke, nor Mr. Ault (to whom, as an associate of Ressler's, I was referred), invited me to track Ressler down at his home or another business -- I was informed that Ressler had retired. In lieu of conducting a personal interview with Ressler, I quoted from his sworn court testimony.


I cannot speculate about Ressler's seeming equivocation. I would say that Ressler's sworn court testimony trumps statements he made outside the courtroom.

[alfaniner]

Interesting that in the other thread Luci gripes about Ed's comment from way back, yet here he uses Ed's comment to support his claim.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Interesting that in the other thread Luci gripes about Ed's comment from way back, yet here he uses Ed's comment to support his claim.

During my education of Ed on his way to become a skeptic, he has chosen to behave sometimes like a child. The sort of 'repulsive' behaviour Ed is acting out is perfectly normal in some students, particularly those who find the transition to enlightenment a struggle in terms of an egocentric conflict. I reject behaviour, not the person.

His skepticism at cheking the source was to be praised, he verified the fact that the police indeed do use psychics to help them with their detection. We, and other skeptics, have already confirmed this through the Police Federation article at the beginning of this thread, we have laso established why, like 'supergrasses', the 'psychic' is kept out of any legal proceeding and only used for intelligence gathering purposes. The police do the 'solving', not the Suprgrass, or the Psychic.

[xouper]

As further evidence of Jeff Corey's observation that Luci is a badly written version of the AI program Eliza, here we see Luci repeating tired old assertions that have been refuted a million times before:

Lucianarchy: ... [Ed] verified the fact that the police indeed do use psychics to help them with their detection.This is, of course, a blatant lie. Ed did no such thing. What Ed did was confirm that Hewitt continues to put an unwarranted spin on Renier's involvement with the case. Everyone who has looked at the case knows that the information given by Renier was totally wrong and did not help in any way to solve the case.

We, and other skeptics, have already confirmed this through the Police Federation article at the beginning of this thread, Wrong again. Get some new material, Luci.

[Patrickt]

I spent thirty years as a police officer. When it comes to skepticism police departments seem to meet societies demographics. They have just as many true believers of various stripes as anywhere else. Two departments near me hired a psychic to help on investigations and they both were amazed at the success of the psychics. They both had lists of "hits" the psychic had made. I sat down and crossed out the ones that had been in the newspapers or on television. The true believers complained that the psychic had said he hadn't read the paper or watched television.

The items left were ludicrous. In one community with a university as the largest industry in town the psychic said the suspect would be somehow connected to the university. It turned out he drove through campus frequently and the officers who brought the psychic in counted that as a strong positive hit.

In my opinion, the officers responsible for bringing in the pyschics have a very strong investment in the psychics being correct and will do whatever they can to create a positive result.

I also knew officers who believed in alien abductions, satanic cults kidnapping children, precognitive dreams, gypsy fortune tellers. Go figure.

[Smalso]

Take someone who believes in psychics and is willing to fudge the evidence to make the psychics appear to be right; and who believes in "alien abductions, satanic cults kidnapping children, precognitive dreams, gypsy fortune tellers." Now give that person a badge and a gun. Scary, isn't it?

[Lucianarchy]

It does not alter the fact that there is clear evidence that psychics are evidently used for intelligence gathering purposes.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It does not alter the fact that there is clear evidence that psychics are evidently used for intelligence gathering purposes.

The "evidence" is anecdotal and can be disregarded. If psychics have gathered anything, it's not intelligence, it's stupidity.

Psychics have failed each and every time they've been involved. All they've succeeded in doing is gathering a few headlines and pocketing undeserved fees, along with exploiting grieving, desperate people and stupid police officers.

As EdGod used to say, "Sniff test." The results speak for themselves. Psychics are not pyschic at all.

[chrisjt]

I watched in total disbelief and amazement as scratches appeared on the tops of Mrs. Gagliardo's hands while she performed psychometry on the bracelet of one of the missing girls. I also saw the scratches disappear!

-Detective Tom Williams, Wheeling Police Dept. Wheeling, WV

All this quote does is show how gullible Tom Williams really is. Or maybe he's just impressed by third-rate conjuring tricks.

[Lucianarchy]

So there we have it, folks. Wolverine, Like ex-JREF Moderator 'Ed', has contacted the police and confirmed that the police do indeed work with psychics, and do not shun them, as claimed by pseduo-skeptics.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ugh! Look what the cat dragged in.

Bad Kitty! Bad Kitty!

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
So there we have it, folks. Wolverine, Like ex-JREF Moderator 'Ed', has contacted the police and confirmed that the police do indeed work with psychics, and do not shun them, as claimed by pseduo-skeptics.

How you're able to discern that from the correspondence, I'll never understand (nor will I understand why you felt it necessary to dredge up this thread):

E-mail from Scotland Yard
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone.

Email Office
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
London SW1H 0BG
www.met.police.uk

Go chase another ambulance.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I spent over 12 years working for the Home Office assessing criminal cases, interviewing suspects, offenders and victims, in custody suites and on the streets and homes where these people live, actually *being* an expert witness, with thousands of hours of Crown Court work. Not only that, I have worked *alongside* hundreds of police officers, worked in over thirty different police stations, from all over the country, on all sorts of criminal cases, from all areas of specialism.

That's a quote from one of Luci's posts on page 5 of this thread.

If true, it's rather strange that the only evidence of psychic assistance to crime solving that Luci can point to is a hotly contested case with huge question marks over it.

You would think that Luci would list dozens of cases on the public record when a psychic has clearly provided crucial information.



Maybe Luci can tell us why no pychics have been able to contact Keith Bennet (Moors Murder victim) and find out where his body is. I'm sure he is keen to put his family out of their living hell after thiry odd years.


Or how about a chat with Suzi Lamplugh?:rolleyes:


If psychics could speak with the dead there would be no unsolved murders.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Wolverine


How you're able to discern that from the correspondence, I'll never understand (nor will I understand why you felt it necessary to dredge up this thread):



As you'll note, the guy admitted to his [i]knowledge[/] only, that psychics are not [i]employed], yet also admits that they are used for intelligence gathering purposes like anyone else. This demonstrates that they are not shunned and treated in the dismissive way that others here claimed. Given the PolFed article and confirmation from many serving officers both here in the UK and in the US that we can now conclude that Psychics indeed do work with the police in a positive intelligence gathering role.

The reason this was "dredged" up is to remind fellow skeptics that the issue is a live one and to remind pseudo-skeptics that the issue has been reinforced with documentation and research coming from members of this forum.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Wolverine


How you're able to discern that from the correspondence, I'll never understand (nor will I understand why you felt it necessary to dredge up this thread):



As you'll note, the guy admitted to his knowledge only, that psychics are not employed, yet also admits that they are used for intelligence gathering purposes like anyone else. This demonstrates that they are not shunned and treated in the dismissive way that others here claimed. Given the PolFed article and confirmation from many serving officers both here in the UK and in the US that we can now conclude that Psychics indeed do work with the police in a positive intelligence gathering role.

The reason this was "dredged" up is to remind fellow skeptics that the issue is a live one and to remind pseudo-skeptics that the issue has been reinforced with documentation and research coming from members of this forum.

[RonSceptic]

Once is enough thank you.

[darling]

Hey Wolverine...

How about dashing off another email to them. I can see it now...

Potential E-mail from Scotland Yard
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. My knowledge is that we do not employ mental patients but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone.

Email Office
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
London SW1H 0BG
www.met.police.uk Then I can do a Lucianarchy and say:

As you'll note, the guy admitted to his knowledge only, that mental patients are not employed, yet also admits that they are used for intelligence gathering purposes like anyone else. This demonstrates that they are not shunned and treated in the dismissive way that others here claimed.

I kill me.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by budddyh
Hey Wolverine...

How about dashing off another email to them. I can see it now...

Then I can do a Lucianarchy and say:

As you'll note, the guy admitted to his knowledge only, that mental patients are not employed, yet also admits that they are used for intelligence gathering purposes like anyone else. This demonstrates that they are not shunned and treated in the dismissive way that others here claimed.

I kill me.

...Except the PolFed have not published collusive work with mental patients which produce positive outcomes. Whereas, evidently, with psychics and Supergrasses, they do.

[Lucianarchy]

We (thanks to wolfern and Ed), have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that psychics work in a positive manner with the police.

Case solved.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
We (thanks to wolfern and Ed), have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that psychics work in a positive manner with the police.

Case solved.

Still running from me I see...

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


Still running from me I see...

" L'OH, OH, vedo, funzionando via, 'eh? Ingiallite i bastardi! Ritorni
qui e prenda che cosa sta venendo a voi. Morderò i vostri piedini
fuori! " :D :D :D

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


" L'OH, OH, vedo, funzionando via, 'eh? Ingiallite i bastardi! Ritorni
qui e prenda che cosa sta venendo a voi. Morderò i vostri piedini
fuori! " :D :D :D

Why do you do that? Why do you not post in English? Are you trying to make it even more difficult to communicate with others?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by LeFevre


Why do you do that? Why do you not post in English? Are you trying to make it even more difficult to communicate with others?

http://www.hrd1715.com/museumreplicaarmor.html

[Lucianarchy]

re-bumped for newbie interest in police / psychic collaboration.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


But let me tell you this, sonny, not only have I spent over 12 years working for the Home Office assessing criminal cases, interviewing suspects, offenders and victims, in custody suites and on the streets and homes where these people live, actually *being* an expert witness, with thousands of hours of Crown Court work. Not only that, I have worked *alongside* hundreds of police officers, worked in over thirty different police stations, from all over the country, on all sorts of criminal cases, from all areas of specialism. I *know* I have a far, *far* reaching depth of experience than you

Luci posted this on September 9th 2002. Given this wealth of experience shouldn't she have dozens of clear examples of cases solved by psychic means?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


Luci posted this on September 9th 2002. Given this wealth of experience shouldn't she have dozens of clear examples of cases solved by psychic means?

I do not claim psychics solve cases. :rolleyes:

The police do work with some psychics, supergrasses and others for intelligence gathering purposes though. Why do you find that difficult to comprehend? :confused:

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I do not claim psychics solve cases. :rolleyes:

The police do work with some psychics, supergrasses and others for intelligence gathering purposes though. Why do you find that difficult to comprehend? :confused:

In your opinion, are these psychics more of a help, or a hinderance to the police forces that agree to accept their assistance?

One more time... are the police better off with, or without the help of psychic detectives?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Psiload


In your opinion, are these psychics more of a help, or a hinderance to the police forces that agree to accept their assistance?


I don't really have an opinion on that particular issue.
You'd have to ask the officers involved. I do know that 'Ed' checked with the Williston detective involved with Ms Renier and he confirmed:

Originally posted by Ed


"I spoke to Sgt. Hewitt a few minutes ago. To lhis credit, he believes that this chick helped. - JREF Moderator 'Ed'.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It does not alter the fact that there is clear evidence that psychics are evidently used for intelligence gathering purposes.

This cannot be true, because there are no such things as psychics, only people that think they are.

If you want to prove me wrong, get one of the "psychics" to take the JREF million.;)

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I don't really have an opinion on that particular issue.
You'd have to ask the officers involved. I do know that 'Ed' checked with the Williston detective involved with Ms Renier and he confirmed:

You have no opinion on the matter? You won't even venture a guess? I can't understand why you would put so much time and effort into defending "psychic detectives", yet at the same time remain genuinely unconcerned with the central tenent of whether they do more harm than good? Would you at least acknowledge the distinct possibility that "psychic detectives" are more hinderance than help to law enforcement investigations?

As far as asking the police agencies involved with "psychic detectives"... they HAVE been asked... and the answer is an overwhelmingly resounding NO. No, we do not employ "psychic detectives". No, we do not solicit the assistance of "psychic detectives". No, we do not lend the leads and tips of "psychic mediums" any more credibility than we treat leads and tips from any other sources. No, none of our cases have been solved by "psychic detectives". No, "psychic detectives" are not likely to provide usefull information, they are much more likely to waste our time and resources investigating false leads. Specifically, the FBI and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, who have fielded thousands of tips, and offers of assistance from "psychic detectives" yet still maintain that to their knowledge, psychic detectives have never helped solve a single missing-person case.

[reprise]

The Williston PD's entire file on the Lewis case was released in response to a Florida Public Records Act request. See here (http://www.noveltynet.org/content/paranormal/www.parascope.com/en/articles/notSoPsychic.htm). The article includes a link to Hewitt's 1995 reports.

Following her "success" in the Lewis case, Renier took up residence in Williston.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Psiload
You have no opinion on the matter?

Not really.

The important thing here is that quite evidently there are some psychics (as listed on the Scotland Yard databse) who provide useable intelligence for the police both in the UK and the US.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/psychic.htm

http://www.csicop.org/sb/9703/belgium.html

The important thing here is that quite evidently there are some psychics (as listed on the Scotland Yard databse) who provide useable intelligence for the police both in the UK and the US.

So you claim. Yet, has there been 1 police document that listed psychics as being a source of evidence? Has it been used in a court of law?

The only thing evident here is that psychics and the believers will say/fabricate anything to try and give credibility to their claims. You know what you can do to give credibility to psychics, Luci, you can take the JREF million from Randi.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

The only thing evident here is that psychics and the believers will say/fabricate anything to try and give credibility to their claims
This is a very strange statement coming from you, of all people, thaiboxerken.

You're the one who fabricated the claim that Claus's 94mb file shows I'm a liar.

When you were repeatedly asked for evidence of your claim, you said you didn't need to give any.

Or did you really mean to write this, tbk: "The only thing evident here is that 'skeptics' like me will say/fabricate anything to try and give credibility to our claims."

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y? :rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


The only thing evident here is that psychics and the believers will say/fabricate anything to try and give credibility to their claims. You know what you can do to give credibility to psychics, Luci, you can take the JREF million from Randi. [/B]

No one's claiming evidence for use in a Court of Law, we're talking about intelligence gathering. In case you are unaware, the police use many mediums in which to glean intelligence to help them make decisions which will solve a case, and evidently some psychics are one of those mediums. An officer doesn't need to say in Court why he happened to look somewhere, just that he did.

If you're suggesting the Police Federation are guilty of fabrication, then you really need to be upfront about it and provide some evidence of fabrication.

[Stumpy]

Luci, you are in error in a number of areas. Speaking with 16 years experience in the UK Police Service, 12 years as a Detective involved in many Murders and other serious crimes can I correct you on the following issues:

Scotland Yard does NOT hold a database including psychics. The database you allude to is held with the National Crime Faculty. Surely your time in the Home Office would have made you aware that this is, and always has been, held at the Police Staff Training College in Bramshill. To go on the database you merely have to apply in writing, to my knowledge there is no "test", no checks etc. You simply offer your services as being an "expert" in any given field, the force area requesting the assistance of anyone on the list must assess the value of the "expert". Merely because any individual or organisation is on the database does not mean that they have ever been used by UK Police.

It is misleading to state that a Police Officer doesn't have to explain why he looked in a particular place, merely that he did. If asked the question in court the officer most certainly DOES have to explain why he looked in a particular place. Inevitably that question will be asked in any situation where something significant has been found. In any event, your Home Office experience will have made you cognizant of the rules of disclosure - the defence is entitled to all evidence and intelligence unless it is particularly sensitive in which case you must make your case for witholding the information in front of a Crown Court Judge. There is NO WAY that a Judge would agree to "intelligence" from a psychic being witheld.

UK Police do not solicit the assistance of Psychics. If, during a Criminal enquiry someone contacts the Police stating that they have information pertinent to that Crime, then the Police are duty bound to follow up that information. Experience tells me that whenever there is a high-profile enquiry we get deluged with calls from every wacko, delusional nutter and no-lifer who wants to make a name for themselves amongst the honest well meaning call. An astonishing amount of time gets wasted on the dubious claims because everthing HAS to be followed up

In relation the the article in the Police Federation magazine. The majority of articles are written by serving and former Police officers. The views expressed in those articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the Police Federation. The murder referred to in the article was solved, but in no way did the intervention of the psychic assist in solving that crime. The psychic lived on the same estate as the victim, within in walking distance in fact. The information from the psychic would have been far more impressive if there had been some distance between the psychic and the scene. It would have been more impressive if the psychic had been able to repeat her psychic crime solving abilities on another case, I can find no record of her doing so. The offender was in fact the main suspect from the start, mainly due to the fact that he was a lover of the victim and NOT due to any intervention of the psychic.

UK Police officers are (sadly) not trained in critical thinking and the art of detecting cold/warm/hot reading or any of the other techniques used by "psychics". The officer who wrote the article therefore did not have sufficient "tools" available to detect fraud if indeed that was the case in respect of the "psychic".

In case you are unaware, the police use many mediums in which to glean intelligence to help them make decisions which will solve a case

This is a shocking distortion of the truth. It is more accurate to say that "mediums use the Police to enhance their reputation"
I cannot conceive of any situation where the UK police will use a psychic to guide their decision making process.

I hope this clears up a few misapprehensions that you have.

Best Wishes

Stumpy

[thaiboxerken]

If you're suggesting the Police Federation are guilty of fabrication, then you really need to be upfront about it and provide some evidence of fabrication.

Actually, the Police Federation needs to provide evidence that the people they claim are psychic actually have superpowers. Until then, I'll stick with the reality that people do not have superpowers.

If the FBI said that they sent superman to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, would you believe them?

The fact is, psychic phenomena is not an established fact. To claim a person is psychic is absurd, and will be absurd until the phenomena is established as fact by the scientific community.

Luci, you deluded woo-woo, come take the JREF money and prove to me that people can have superpowers.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Stumpy


In relation the the article in the Police Federation magazine. The majority of articles are written by serving and former Police officers. The views expressed in those articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the Police Federation. The murder referred to in the article was solved, but in no way did the intervention of the psychic assist in solving that crime. The psychic lived on the same estate as the victim, within in walking distance in fact. The information from the psychic would have been far more impressive if there had been some distance between the psychic and the scene. It would have been more impressive if the psychic had been able to repeat her psychic crime solving abilities on another case, I can find no record of her doing so. The offender was in fact the main suspect from the start, mainly due to the fact that he was a lover of the victim and NOT due to any intervention of the psychic.


Whoa.. so a psychic may have helped the police, but did so because of mundane knowledge.

I guess if a psychic gives me a buck, I can claim that a psychic helped my financial status.

:roll:

Wow, believers are stupid.

[Pyrrho]

Why would the UK police use psychics, when psychics are listed as a form of "cross border fraud" the UK Department of Trade and Industry is actively working to end? It would be interesting -- but not surprising for a government -- if the police hired psychics to catch fraudulent psychics -- as if there were any other kind. :rolleyes:

http://www.gnn.gov.uk/gnn/national.nsf/TI/8AD14099F33E499280256D4800432C0A?opendocument


Other scams

Other types of scam that have come to the attention of enforcement
authorities include - alleged 'psychics' and clairvoyants; misleading
health and diet claims; misleading prize draws (including some that claim to be UK based but have a PO Box hiding an overseas
connection); and timeshare and holiday club scams, which are
notorious for using high pressure selling techniques and evading
consumer protection laws.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Stumpy
Luci, you are in error in a number of areas. Speaking with 16 years experience in the UK Police Service, 12 years as a Detective involved in many Murders and other serious crimes can I correct you on the following issues:

Scotland Yard does NOT hold a database including psychics. The database you allude to is held with the National Crime Faculty. Surely your time in the Home Office would have made you aware that this is, and always has been, held at the Police Staff Training College in Bramshill. To go on the database you merely have to apply in writing, to my knowledge there is no "test", no checks etc. You simply offer your services as being an "expert" in any given field, the force area requesting the assistance of anyone on the list must assess the value of the "expert". Merely because any individual or organisation is on the database does not mean that they have ever been used by UK Police.

It is misleading to state that a Police Officer doesn't have to explain why he looked in a particular place, merely that he did. If asked the question in court the officer most certainly DOES have to explain why he looked in a particular place. Inevitably that question will be asked in any situation where something significant has been found. In any event, your Home Office experience will have made you cognizant of the rules of disclosure - the defence is entitled to all evidence and intelligence unless it is particularly sensitive in which case you must make your case for witholding the information in front of a Crown Court Judge. There is NO WAY that a Judge would agree to "intelligence" from a psychic being witheld.

UK Police do not solicit the assistance of Psychics. If, during a Criminal enquiry someone contacts the Police stating that they have information pertinent to that Crime, then the Police are duty bound to follow up that information. Experience tells me that whenever there is a high-profile enquiry we get deluged with calls from every wacko, delusional nutter and no-lifer who wants to make a name for themselves amongst the honest well meaning call. An astonishing amount of time gets wasted on the dubious claims because everthing HAS to be followed up

In relation the the article in the Police Federation magazine. The majority of articles are written by serving and former Police officers. The views expressed in those articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the Police Federation. The murder referred to in the article was solved, but in no way did the intervention of the psychic assist in solving that crime. The psychic lived on the same estate as the victim, within in walking distance in fact. The information from the psychic would have been far more impressive if there had been some distance between the psychic and the scene. It would have been more impressive if the psychic had been able to repeat her psychic crime solving abilities on another case, I can find no record of her doing so. The offender was in fact the main suspect from the start, mainly due to the fact that he was a lover of the victim and NOT due to any intervention of the psychic.

UK Police officers are (sadly) not trained in critical thinking and the art of detecting cold/warm/hot reading or any of the other techniques used by "psychics". The officer who wrote the article therefore did not have sufficient "tools" available to detect fraud if indeed that was the case in respect of the "psychic".



This is a shocking distortion of the truth. It is more accurate to say that "mediums use the Police to enhance their reputation"
I cannot conceive of any situation where the UK police will use a psychic to guide their decision making process.

I hope this clears up a few misapprehensions that you have.

Best Wishes

Stumpy

Thank you for this excellent and informative post. Unfortunately it will make little difference to Luci. Last time this topic was raised a poster called Hannibal, a serving officer of many years experience who was even prepared to reveal his ID number (my term not his so excuse me if I got the wrong term) to prove that he was genuine.

That's when Luci posted the stuff about 12 years work with the home office.

Hannibal's experience matches yours. As does the e-mail from Scotland Yard.

But still Luci clings to the article in the Police Federation magazine. And she will continue to do so. Not matter how often it is debunked.

[SteveGrenard]

Ex UK Police Officer Stumpy makes a number of factual errors. This case was independently investgated by a team of researchers who are publishing it in the JSPR. The investigation is currently undergoing peer review. One of the investigators, M.
Keen, was given the opportunity of seeing Stumpy's assertions and responds thus:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The extract you quote (Stumpy) sounds suspiciously like the efforts of Tony Youens, a skeptic, who writes in the current issue of the UK magazine The Skeptic in an effort to disparage the authenticity and force of the Poole case, about which I had written in an earlier issue of the magazine.

(So Stumpy did you lift this from Tony Yuens and not give him credit? sg)

They were supposed to have printed my reply in the same issue, but none has appeared. Here are the responses to the comments:

The Police Federation's magazine has no views, and the fact is irrelevant to the merits of the case.

Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark. It was the DNA material
on this garment which was the evidence that put Ruark behind bars.

The psychic lived about three miles away in West London on the other side of a major arterial road, and a good three quarters of an hour's walk from the residence of the victim.
(Not in the samer estate or housing park)

The psychic ability or otherwise to repeat her success has not the slightest bearing on the merits of the case or the facts involved. In fact Batters has confirmed that the medium has been instrumental in locating missing bodies; but this is strictly irrelevant. The expression "I can find no record of her
doing so" [i.e. 'solving' a similar murder], is silly. No two cases are alike. The police do not announce what help if any they have received from mediums.

The offender had already been ruled out as a prime suspect by the time the police saw the medium, since he had a persuasive alibi, backed up by some of his friends.

The murderer was NOT the victim's lover. She knew but disliked him. There were a great many other suspects.

Cold or hot readings cannot possibly account for the wealth of detail given by the psychic in this case. It is arrogant, offensive and incorrect to imply that the officer in this case was so naive and incompetent as not to be able to determine what information could have derived from well known methods of
extracting information. But even if he were so innocent, it could not possibly account for the sort of information given.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what do we have here? A faulty and rhetorical account by an ex Police Officer who is interested in making sure nobody believes psychics help cops, an account that was peppered with information that may've been plagiarized from another source but that source was also faulty as they made things up (i.e. the assailant was the victim's lover or the psychic lived nearby. etc.)
The usual bending and shading of the truth to extend one's case.

The case was indpendently investigated by Keen and Playfair and they talked to everyone involved. To answer an earlier question by Mark Tidwell, no the paper on this case is not based on the popular magazine article. Hopefully the peer review process will not have to make us wait much longer.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
You're the one who fabricated the claim that Claus's 94mb file shows I'm a liar.

Ehhh....Clancie....you did lie. Repeatedly.

You claimed to have "looked at" the file I had uploaded for you.

You also claimed that the file only consisted of your posts. 18Mb.

You claimed that no evidence of your lies were there.

Then, when you realized it really was 94Mb of text of everybody's posts, you changed your tune. After much fiddling, you finally fessed up:

You had not looked at the file.

There were other lies, but I understand why you don't want those to be posted here.

Originally posted by Clancie
Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y? :rolleyes:

Can you spell l-i-a-r? :rolleyes:

[AlienX]

I think this thread just higlights how appropriate Mr Randi's idea for a test is.

We can argue all day and not get anywhere at all.

My question to Luci is this:

If we are to accept and use "phychics" in criminal investigations then how do we know
the phychic in question is "credible"?

If the police do use these people then i'm very annoyed at them using their resources on
an unproved technique. Basically this is demonstrating neglegence by using such unproved methods.

So any links to specific cases the "prove" (not sure how these links are proof of anything) are irrelevent.

Maybe the "phychics" in question would care to take Randi's challenge.

For me the only real solution either way is to have these people properly tested.
Then we will have real solid data (evidence) to discuss.

AX

[Psiload]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ex UK Police Officer Stumpy makes a number of factual errors. This case was independently investgated by a team of researchers who are publishing it in the JSPR. The investigation is currently undergoing peer review. One of the investigators, M.
Keen, was given the opportunity of seeing Stumpy's assertions and responds thus:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The extract you quote (Stumpy) sounds suspiciously like the efforts of Tony Youens, a skeptic, who writes in the current issue of the UK magazine The Skeptic in an effort to disparage the authenticity and force of the Poole case, about which I had written in an earlier issue of the magazine.

(So Stumpy did you lift this from Tony Yuens and not give him credit? sg)

They were supposed to have printed my reply in the same issue, but none has appeared. Here are the responses to the comments:

The Police Federation's magazine has no views, and the fact is irrelevant to the merits of the case.

Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark. It was the DNA material
on this garment which was the evidence that put Ruark behind bars.

The psychic lived about three miles away in West London on the other side of a major arterial road, and a good three quarters of an hour's walk from the residence of the victim.
(Not in the samer estate or housing park)

The psychic ability or otherwise to repeat her success has not the slightest bearing on the merits of the case or the facts involved. In fact Batters has confirmed that the medium has been instrumental in locating missing bodies; but this is strictly irrelevant. The expression "I can find no record of her
doing so" [i.e. 'solving' a similar murder], is silly. No two cases are alike. The police do not announce what help if any they have received from mediums.

The offender had already been ruled out as a prime suspect by the time the police saw the medium, since he had a persuasive alibi, backed up by some of his friends.

The murderer was NOT the victim's lover. She knew but disliked him. There were a great many other suspects.

Cold or hot readings cannot possibly account for the wealth of detail given by the psychic in this case. It is arrogant, offensive and incorrect to imply that the officer in this case was so naive and incompetent as not to be able to determine what information could have derived from well known methods of
extracting information. But even if he were so innocent, it could not possibly account for the sort of information given.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what do we have here? A faulty and rhetorical account by an ex Police Officer who is interested in making sure nobody believes psychics help cops, an account that was peppered with information that may've been plagiarized from another source but that source was also faulty as they made things up (i.e. the assailant was the victim's lover or the psychic lived nearby. etc.)
The usual bending and shading of the truth to extend one's case.

The case was indpendently investigated by Keen and Playfair and they talked to everyone involved. To answer an earlier question by Mark Tidwell, no the paper on this case is not based on the popular magazine article. Hopefully the peer review process will not have to make us wait much longer.

Ok, Steve... Clancie doesn't seem to have the intestinal fortitude to address the question, so I'll put it to you. Real simple... psychic detectives: are the cops better off with them, or without them?

I'm asking the question in a broad sense, I'm not interested in a case-by-case evaluation.

[SteveGrenard]

Ok, Steve... Clancie doesn't seem to have the intestinal fortitude to address the question, so I'll put it to you. Real simple... psychic detectives: are the cops better off with them, or without them?

I'm asking the question in a broad sense, I'm not interested in a case-by-case evaluation.


Reply: I will then answer you in a broad sense. I think the police say it as well. They are interested in all the help they can get from the public and mediums/psychics are also members of the public. It is up to them to sort the wheat from the chaff.
There are thinkers out there who are, in a broad sense, intuitive, that help solve crimes. The results is what counts .... not necessarily the means or underlying thesis that brings one to conclusion. Of course the police must follow the rules of evidence and anything the public provides in the way of "leads" must be investigated according to these rules. That's the challenge of the police and prosecutors.

[Stumpy]

Steve, any errors made are entirely yours an M. KEENS

Firstly at no time did I describe myself as an Ex UK Police Officer.

Secondly I have not read the article by Tony Youens so cannot provide extracts from it.

Thirdly the "principal detective involved" in the case was not Tony Batters. The principal detective (the Senior Investigating Officer) on the original enquiry was Detective Superintendent Tony Lundy. The SIO on the re-opened enquiry was Detective Chief Inspector Norman McKinlay.

it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark. It was the DNA material on this garment which was the evidence that put Ruark behind bars.

This is incorrect! There was a minute amount of semen recovered from the body of the deceased during the original post mortem examination. DNA technology was insufficient to extract a "profile" at that time. Recent developments in the science have allowed scientists to extract a "profile" from that semen sample. This profile was matched against Rouark's DNA from a sample that he was obliged to give a couple of years ago due to several auto-crime convictions. The sweater you mention had NOTHING to due with the conviction.

Both victim and psychic lived in Ruislip in London.

The psychic ability or otherwise to repeat her success has not the slightest bearing on the merits of the case or the facts involved.

Here we must disagree. Christine Holohan, claims to be a psychic and therefore should be able to repeat her success. Focussing on a single "case" is an incomplete and unrepresentative set of data on which to base a conclusion. Unless you believe that only the hits count. ;)

The offender had already been ruled out as a prime suspect by the time the police saw the medium, since he had a persuasive alibi, backed up by some of his friends.

Again this in incorrect! Who is or is not a prime suspect or ANY suspect falls entirely within the perview of the Senior Investigating Officer. The SIO Det Supt Lundy says this Ruark was always the main suspect and although after some 15 months we closed down the enquiry, he was noted as the person most likely to have murdered her SEE FIRST LINK BELOW FOR SOURCE

The murderer was NOT the victim's lover

Where is your source for this info? A BBC report states the following:Anthony Ruark, now aged 40, became a prime suspect following the death of his lover, 25-year-old Jacqueline Poole, in February 1983. SEE SECOND LINK BELOW
William Boyce QC, the prosecuting Barrister said this in open court during the trial:The defendant knew she had jewellery. He was her lover for a period.

Cold or hot readings cannot possibly account for the wealth of detail given by the psychic in this case.

This is an opinion only dressed up as fact, hot reading (i.e. prior knowledge could easily explain the information given.

It is arrogant, offensive and incorrect to imply that the officer in this case was so naive and incompetent as not to be able to determine what information could have derived from well known methods of

Again an opinion dressed up as fact. At no time did I insinuate that any officer was naive and incompetent!

So what do we have here? A faulty and rhetorical account by an ex Police Officer

Again incorrect, where have I stated that I am an ex-police officer? Where is the rhetoric??

who is interested in making sure nobody believes psychics help cops

Incorrect again!!

an account that was peppered with information that may've been plagiarized from another source but that source was also faulty as they made things up (i.e. the assailant was the victim's lover or the psychic lived nearby. etc.)

Incorrect again!!!!! What have I plagiarized??? Let's see the original article that I have allegedly ripped off. Based on report of BBC journalist who interviewed the original SIO, the later SIO and the forensic scientist the offender WAS the the victim's lover. Both psychic and victim lived in Rusilip!! A small borough in London.

The usual bending and shading of the truth to extend one's case

Incorrect Again!!!! All the errors are yours and your correspondent's.

The case was indpendently investigated by Keen and Playfair and they talked to everyone involved.

YET THEY AREN'T EVEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE PRINCIPAL DETECTIVE INVOLVED IN THE CASE!!!! They can't even get this simple fact correct (which is a matter of public record). Similarly the basic facts of the case e.g how the DNA match was made, the relationship between the offender and victim seems to have escaped their hard nosed investigation. Just how objective or reliable is their investigation?

My posts are based on many years experience in UK Law Enforcement and reports of expereinced BBC journalists who also spoke to the main players in the enquiry. Please now list your qualifications and experience in relation to UK Law Enforcement.

Links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1459056.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1507701.stm

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The results is what counts ....

Exactly. Show me one psychic who has solved a case.

Just one.

No fiddling about. No lengthy explanations of various kinds.

Just name the psychic, and the case he/she solved.

How difficult could that be? :confused:

[Psiload]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ok, Steve... Clancie doesn't seem to have the intestinal fortitude to address the question, so I'll put it to you. Real simple... psychic detectives: are the cops better off with them, or without them?

I'm asking the question in a broad sense, I'm not interested in a case-by-case evaluation.


Reply: I will then answer you in a broad sense. I think the police say it as well. They are interested in all the help they can get from the public and mediums/psychics are also members of the public. It is up to them to sort the wheat from the chaff.
There are thinkers out there who are, in a broad sense, intuitive, that help solve crimes. The results is what counts .... not necessarily the means or underlying thesis that brings one to conclusion. Of course the police must follow the rules of evidence and anything the public provides in the way of "leads" must be investigated according to these rules. That's the challenge of the police and prosecutors. It's the results that count... well said. So you agree that police investigations would be better off without the help of psychic and mediums. I mean, you've got to agree that the result of the vast majority of psychic assistance is worthless at best, and counterproductive in most cases. I agree... it's all about results.

btw... intuition is not a synonym for psychic.

instinctive, automatic, direct, emotional, habitual, immediate, inherent, innate, instinctual, involuntary, natural, perceptive, spontaneous, understood, unreflecting, untaught, visceral

Nope... no psychic. 'Intuitive' is a prosiac term that has been hijacked by psychics to lend an air of credibility to their claims. (also see: 'etheric')

[Clancie]

Posted by Psiload

It's the results that count... well said. So you agree that police investigations would be better off without the help of psychic and mediums.

I mean, you've got to agree that the result of the vast majority of psychic assistance is worthless at best, and counterproductive in most cases. I agree... it's all about results.
Exactly. If the police feel they benefit from input from psychics (as some obviously do feel), I'm not one to second-guess them.
Posted by Psiload

btw... intuition is not a synonym for psychic.
You can say so, or quote a thesaurus. But many people who think there is such a thing as "being psychic" use it to describe an intuitive ability that is stronger than most other people's.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Clancie... honey.. Do you ever address issues about which one might/should be skeptical of besides mediumship and psychics?

I really don't want to retract my earlier opinion of you, but you're really sounding like a one trick pony. If your sole skeptical agenda is your pet "there might be something to this," then I'm sorry, but your skeptical credentials are in doubt.

:)

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Stumpy
Unless you believe that only the hits count. ;)


Actually, he does.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Clancie

Exactly. If the police feel they benefit from input from psychics (as some obviously do feel), I'm not one to second-guess them.

The vast majority of law enforcement agencies do NOT feel they benefit from psychics. Again... you refuse to look at the big picture here. I wonder why this is so difficult for you to do? I guess when you're a psychic sympathizer, it doesn't pay to look at the mountain of chaff, better to just put your blinders on and keep searching for that grain of wheat.

Why wouldn't you second guess the police? Your tax dollars pay their salaries. What if your local police force wanted to spend thousands of dollars on Quadro Trackers, or DKL Lifeguards? Would you second-guess them then? It's more or less your civic duty to ensure they're operating in an efficient, professional manner. Does you also apply this laissez faire attitude towards the behavior and decisions of your elected officials?

You can say so, or quote a thesaurus. But many people who think there is such a thing as "being psychic" use it to describe an intuitive ability that is stronger than most other people's.

People use lot's of euphamisms to mask the fact that their claims are, in fact, paranormal. Many people use terms like "frequency" and "vibrations" to try and explain their paranormal delusions and desires, that still doesn't consitute a proper usage of the terms... it ain't so just because lots of people says it's so.

[SteveGrenard]

Regarding your status Stumpy did you or did you not write the following. If you did not I apologize. If you did, and you were not a police officer, your choice of wording gives the mistaken impression you were:

Originally posted by Stumpy

"Luci, you are in error in a number of areas. Speaking with 16 years experience in the UK Police Service, 12 years as a Detective involved in many Murders and other serious crimes can I correct you on the following issues:."

[SteveGrenard]

Insofar as the rest of your assertions or those you quote, as a detective for 12 years and UK police officer or not, they will play out in the official record which is undergoing extensive peer review. Neither myself nor Keen, on whom I rely on for information re this case and who is one of the two researchers who carefully studied this case, have anything more to add as obviously it is a "he said, she said" and will go nowhere fast. Only the documented material which will be referenced in the peer reviewed study to be published should be accepted or refuted when it appears.

[Clancie]

Psiload,

If some police detectives feel psychics are helpful, so be it. If others don't, fine with me as well.

A few months back, I saw an interview on Court TV's program on psychics working with the police. The detective said that he often found their insights very helpful.

I saw this program around the time of Elizabeth Smart's reappearance in Salt Lake City. The SLC police department is one that does not think well of using psychics. However, listening to the evidence overlooked in the Smart case, its hard to think they wouldn't have benefited from someone's dose of intuition and fresh insight.

Its hard to understand how they could have had all the information about her kidnapping that they did and still basically insist on focusing only on Richard Ricci as a suspect. A fresh dose of "insight" from someone less biased, less locked into preconceived ideas--someone with a fresh perspective--might have proved very helpful much earlier in that case.

That was one kind of contribution that the police detective interviewed on Court TV said that psychics (also often called "intuitives") can be helpful with.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Clancie
Psiload,

If some police detectives feel psychics are helpful, so be it. If others don't, fine with me as well.

A few months back, I saw an interview on Court TV's program on psychics working with the police. The detective said that he often found their insights very helpful.

I saw this program around the time of Elizabeth Smart's reappearance in Salt Lake City. The SLC police department is one that does not think well of using psychics. However, listening to the evidence overlooked in the Smart case, its hard to think they wouldn't have benefited from someone's dose of intuition and fresh insight.

Its hard to understand how they could have had all the information about her kidnapping that they did and still basically insist on focusing only on Richard Ricci as a suspect. A fresh dose of "insight" from someone less biased, less locked into preconceived ideas--someone with a fresh perspective--might have proved very helpful much earlier in that case.

That was one kind of contribution that the police detective interviewed on Court TV said that psychics (also often called "intuitives") can be helpful with.

On the other hand... maybe the cops in Salt Lake City would have had the time, and manpower to apply a fresh dose of "insight", not to mention good ol' fashioned investigative work, to the Smart case, had they not been so busy dealing with the "psychic detective" knuckleheads of Psitech Inc. who were urging mass mailing, and e-mailing harrassment campaigns in an effort to get the SLC police to take their nonsense seriously, and waste even more time than they already had on their delusions.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Clancie

I saw this program around the time of Elizabeth Smart's reappearance in Salt Lake City. The SLC police department is one that does not think well of using psychics. However, listening to the evidence overlooked in the Smart case, its hard to think they wouldn't have benefited from someone's dose of intuition and fresh insight.

Its hard to understand how they could have had all the information about her kidnapping that they did and still basically insist on focusing only on Richard Ricci as a suspect. A fresh dose of "insight" from someone less biased, less locked into preconceived ideas--someone with a fresh perspective--might have proved very helpful much earlier in that case.

That was one kind of contribution that the police detective interviewed on Court TV said that psychics (also often called "intuitives") can be helpful with.

Actually they did get a huge amount of pyschic 'help' on this case from PsiTech. You will recall that they spoke with Elizabeth in heaven and found out where her murdered body was to be found. She also passed through to them some poetry she had written since her death.

The back pedalling when she was found alive and well was pitiful to watch. (The poem was removed from the PsiTech site for example in an attempty to cover their tracks.) But, still. I have no doubt that PsiTech are still credible in certain quarters.

Out of interest, what is your take on the PsiTech performance on the Smart case?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
If some police detectives feel psychics are helpful, so be it. If others don't, fine with me as well.

So, you wouldn't mind some police detectives seek the advice of Ms. Cleo, if they felt she was helpful?

A person who reads animal entrails?

A witch doctor?

[Clancie]

RonSceptic,

Did the SLC police bring PsiTech into the case?

I don't know a lot about their involvement. My understanding (if that's enough for you) is that they were not consulted by the SLC police but (like some other "psychics") volunteered the information that she was dead and provided details--which were basically all wrong.

Other than that, I don't know anything about the group, their skills, claims, or success/failure record.

The positive accounts I've seen of detectives working with psychics (again, referring to the series on Court TV), were not based on isolated "tips" phoned in, but on a working relationship where the psychic had access to information and consulted with the police, often going to look at crime scenes and evidence with them.

Again, I don't claim "Yes, psychics help the police solve crimes" because I really don't know.

I do think it is a fact that some police detectives have found working with psychics very helpful to them in solving crimes.

My position is that I don't discount the possibility that particular psychics could be helpful (not just all "psychics in general") and that I'm interested in knowing more about it.

[Stumpy]

Steve

You misinterpreted the information, I am not an EX UK Police Officer, I am very much a current UK Police Officer.

You are suggesting that the "official record" is undergoing peer review. Is this the "official record" of the Police investigation or the "official record" of M.Keen's investigation. The Police investigation would have already been peer reviewed by another Police Force area. If you could point me in the direction of that review and any comments therein regarding the usefulness or otherwise of the "psychics's" intervention I would be grateful.

In the case of M.Keen's "official record" of his investigation, is it not now encumbant on him to review his investigation to correct the errors that obviously exist in it? Will the peer reviewers be in possession of the correct version of events so that they can take an objective view? After incorrect information in the report is almost certainly going to result in an incorrect conclusion.

I am dubious of your assertion that the researchers to whom you refer "carefully studied" the case. Are they maintaining that Tony Batters was the principal detective in the case? This is cleary and unambiguously an error (and an elementary one at that!). The assertion that the victim and offender were not lovers is clearly and unabiguously untrue! Is the "official record" of the investigation going to accuse a Queen's council Barrister of lying to a Crown Court?

I can well imagine that your correspondents "don't have anything to add", judging by the inaccuracies presented M.Keen's observations.

My prediction (not based on any psychic ability:)) is that the "official report" will be submitted uncorrected and declared as an authentic case of psychic ability, based on the apparent errors.

Stumpy

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Clancie
RonSceptic,

Did the SLC police bring PsiTech into the case?

I don't know a lot about their involvement. My understanding (if that's enough for you) is that they were not consulted by the SLC police but (like some other "psychics") volunteered the information that she was dead and provided details--which were basically all wrong.

Other than that, I don't know anything about the group, their skills, claims, or success/failure record.

The positive accounts I've seen of detectives working with psychics (again, referring to the series on Court TV), were not based on isolated "tips" phoned in, but on a working relationship where the psychic had access to information and consulted with the police, often going to look at crime scenes and evidence with them.

Again, I don't claim "Yes, psychics help the police solve crimes" because I really don't know.

I do think it is a fact that some police detectives have found working with psychics very helpful to them in solving crimes.

My position is that I don't discount the possibility that particular psychics could be helpful (not just all "psychics in general") and that I'm interested in knowing more about it.

My memory is a little fuzzy on this but I think that Elizabeth's father called Psitech in.

I feel that the whole episode totally discredits Psitech.

If pychics are useful to investigations it would be good to see a few clear examples.

[CFLarsen]

A full account can be found here: PSI-TECH: Not So Smart (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/psitechsmart.htm)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, you wouldn't mind some police detectives seek the advice of Ms. Cleo, if they felt she was helpful?

A person who reads animal entrails?

A witch doctor?
Not directed at me, but I'll answer these questions anyway.

I'd say, in some circumstances, sure (well, maybe not Ms. Cleo). If the police are truly out of leads and are "Stuck", then I'd say that anything that helps them get "unstuck" should be considered.

I don't believe in psychics, entrail readers or witch doctors, but if they can jog the police into new avenues that actually help, then use them. An example from fiction. I read a book where the lead character uses a tarot deck - not because he believes in fortune telling, but because it forces him to look at a situation from a different angle. If the "psychics" can do this, I don't see the problem in using them.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy

[...]

I hope this clears up a few misapprehensions that you have.

Best Wishes

Stumpy

Best wishes to you too, Stumpy.

You do know that an officer only needs to act on information recieved, don't you?

You also know that they do not always have to disclose where the information came from, don't you?

You seem to rely on a claim to your own authority, but you will be aware that this is a skeptical forum and we skeptics do not value that sort of thing.

However, I'd be very interested to read your mundane (or otherwise) explanation for the case published by The Police Federation.

What is it?

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy: You misinterpreted the information, I am not an EX UK Police Officer, I am very much a current UK Police Officer.

Reply: When one talks about two periods of time in the past, e.g. 12 and 16 years, one gets the impression one is talking about the past. Hence my faulty assumption, I apologize for jumping to that. However, it pays to be more specific.

Stumpy: You are suggesting that the "official record" is undergoing peer review. Is this the "official record" of the Police investigation or the "official record" of M.Keen's investigation. The Police investigation would have already been peer reviewed by another Police Force area. If you could point me in the direction of that review and any comments therein regarding the usefulness or otherwise of the "psychics's" intervention I would be grateful.

Reply: The official record appears in the public files and court records or so I am advised and these have been reviewed. Officers who worked on the case have been interviewed. I
previously posted a memo from Keen on the case prefatory to the publication of record of his and Guy Playfair's investigation of the psychic involvement. Knowing Keen's penchant for methodically accurate reporting of information he uncovers, whatever appears in the peer reviewed version is apt to be better than any hearsay or backroom conversations or speculations by local skeptics or even policemen or the BBC.

The peer reviewers for the JSPR, in my own experience, question sources and references and ask for these. I would think they'd do no less in this instance and there are usually at least three reviewers, sometimes 4 plus the editor asking for more info as well.

The psychic's accounts at the time of the crime were IGNORED, hence they were of no value to the investigation or even to the
apprehension and conviction of the killer. The psychic's account appeared in a police officer's dated notes, are part of the evidence in the case at the time and were found to contain accuracies regarding the identity of the killer after the killer was identified by other means long after the dated notes were made.
Therefore: there is no claim that he psychic helped the police but a case could be made that she tried to help but her evidence was ignored.



Stumpy: In the case of M.Keen's "official record" of his investigation, is it not now encumbant on him to review his investigation to correct the errors that obviously exist in it? Will the peer reviewers be in possession of the correct version of events so that they can take an objective view? After incorrect information in the report is almost certainly going to result in an incorrect conclusion.

Reply: Since he has not published any report yet I am interested in knowing what errors you refer to and your source for these. If you PM me this information I would be happy to pass it along to Keen by private communication if you don't wish to discuss sources publicly. I assume they concern: the relationship between the killer and victim, the physical proximity of the psychic to the deceased at the time and the name of the police officers invoved plus any argument over who "lead" the case.

Stumpy: I am dubious of your assertion that the researchers to whom you refer "carefully studied" the case. Are they maintaining that Tony Batters was the principal detective in the case? This is cleary and unambiguously an error (and an elementary one at that!). The assertion that the victim and offender were not lovers is clearly and unabiguously untrue! Is the "official record" of the investigation going to accuse a Queen's council Barrister of lying to a Crown Court?

Reply: Surely you jest. A Queens Counsel is a lawyer, and a prosecutor. He will emphasize whatever aspect of a case he feels will result in conviction. The fact that the word or information provided by mere mortals contradicts the Q.C. may not be meritorious in your view but it has to be looked at anyway.
The fact that the killer's semen was recovered from the victim does not indicate consenual intercourse or even intercourse prior to her being struck. However, it may have been a convenient link for the Q.C. to establish a relationship between the victim and her killer. Again, the killer was caught by DNA and there is no disputing that.

You also know that there is often disagreement between police personalities as to who gets the credit for "leading" a case but I won't go there.

The conviction was based on DNA found on stowed evidence, a sweater and other samples from he deceased and, indeed, was matched with that of the perpetrator years later when the technology came about. This was all they needed for the conviction I am told but if the Q.C. felt smearing the deceased by indicating she had anything more than a casual relationship with the killer, so be it. I do not know who was leading the investigation but Batter's involvement with obtainng the psychic's account was well established. I assume there were more than 1 detective on the case at the time and when it was closed.


Stumpy: I can well imagine that your correspondents "don't have anything to add", judging by the inaccuracies presented M.Keen's observations.

Reply: Until you give a source for your contrary view of events, I can say the same. Hence the conclusion of "he said, she said."
If you have documents to prove your assertions that the psychic lived very near the deceased and that the deceased was having a love affair with her killer, I am sure Keen would be happy to look at them. See my offer above.


Stumpy: My prediction (not based on any psychic ability) is that the "official report" will be submitted uncorrected and declared as an authentic case of psychic ability, based on the apparent errors.

Reply: If its referenced with verbatim accounts taken from the official records, your prediction may fail to materialize. Again, knowing Keen as I do, and meeting with him in NY in two weeks, where we will discuss this, I am sure he would be more than willing to examine any documentation regarding the case which contradicts the information he has and further that he would report on that correctly. Barring that, and I predict this may be the case, when the account is published complete with references, anyone is free to contradict it with similarly reliable references if they so choose.

BTW I personally have no contrary views. The information I cite is from Keen and Playfair as above.

[Lucianarchy]

[originally posted by Lucianarchy]

In case you are unaware, the police use many mediums in which to glean intelligence to help them make decisions which will solve a case

Originally posted by Stumpy


This is a shocking distortion of the truth.

Stumpy

Ah, that is with a small 'm', stumpy.

Hope this clears up any misapprehensions that you have.

[Stumpy]

Hi Luci

I take it that you only raise issue with the issue of "disclosure" because that you accept the other issues that I raised?

You do know that an officer only needs to act on information recieved, don't you? You also know that they do not always have to disclose where the information came from, don't you?

Non Sequitor! An officer doesn't NEED to act on information recieved, any information is assesed and actioned according to the "grading" of that information. Another correction: "they" always DO have to disclose where the information came from (I assume we are talking about information that is relevant to the case on trial). Of course, if the Police wish to protect a registered informant, they can always apply for a PII (Public Immunity Interest) certificate from the Judge, but they still have to disclose to him where that information came from.

Having been trained in "disclosure" issues, having had experience in applying for PII certificates I DO feel that I am qualified to comment on such issues. Your training/qualifications/experience are what exactly again?

However, I'd be very interested to read your mundane (or otherwise) explanation for the case published by The Police Federation.

You imply that a "mundane" explantion is unsatisfactory to you, even if it is the most likely?

No easy task if you are asking me to draw conclusions based on conversations which are two decades old, that I was not party to and have not had access to the notes or an opportunity to speak to any of the parties involved.

There are obviously a number of possibilities:
The Medium has genuine psychic ability and was in touch with the spirt of the deceased.
The officers notes and recollections are inaccurate.
The officers are flat out lying.
The notes are accurate, the "psychic" was using warm reading or some other form of fraud.

Very little can be proven one way or the other about this specific case. I don't see any value or reason for the officers to lie and in all honesty don't believe this to be the case. Of course the issue of inaccuracy or warm reading are valid but cannot be tested. The theory of genuine psychic ability can be tested. After all, the psychic involved claims to still be practcing her talents. Let her be tested, in the event of success I will glady conceed that she was in contact with the deceased during the Ruark enquiry.


Steve


The official record appears in the public files

A Queens Counsel is a lawyer, and a prosecutor. He will emphasize whatever aspect of a case he feels will result in conviction. The fact that the word or information provided by mere mortals contradicts the Q.C. may not be meritorious in your view but it has to be looked at anyway.

You also know that tere is often disagreement between police personalities as to who gets the credit for "leading" a case but I won't go there.

You appear to be mapping the American justice system to the English system, the two are not compatible. There are no "public files" in the English system. Lawyers do not guild the lily in the English system. Lawers will conceed the areas where there is no dispute during a pre-trail meeting. You imply that the there was information that rebutted the assertion that victim and offenders were lovers - source?
In the English system there are No jurisdictional issues between competing agencies (there are no competing agencies!). There is no disagreement over who leads a case, particulary in a murder case - this is unambiguously the SIO. The SIO is at least a Det Chief Inspector in such cases. If you wish to dispute this please state your qualifications/experience in Uk murder enquries.

The psychic's accounts at the time of the crime were IGNORED, hence they were of no value to the investigation or even to the

You imply that the psychic gave information that would have progressed the enquiry if it had NOT been ignored. What was the nature of this information? Bear in mind that according to the SIO "Ruark was always the main suspect".

The psychic's account appeared in a police officer's dated notes, are part of the evidence in the case

All evidence relevant to the case HAS to be presented before the Court. I eagerly anticipate the official report based on the "public file" and "court record". I guarantee 100% that no such reference will exist because the notes were NOT part of the evidence used in the case.

Since he has not published any report yet I am interested in knowing what errors you refer to and your source for these

But you quoted a communication with you from M.Keen in relation to his "knowedge" of the case. Surely those asserions are part of his report, if not what is he playing at? The assertions that I disagree with are clearly stated in my previous post along with their sources.

I assume they concern: the relationship between the killer and victim, the physical proximity of the pschic to the deceased at the time and the name of the police invoved.

...and the erroneous asserion that Tony Battens was the Principal Detective on the enquiry! And the source of the DNA match between Ruark and the sample of semen found on the deceased's body.

The Keen case seems to be that there was no previous relationship between Ruark and the victim, yet Ruark's sweater (presumably) bore evidence of the Victim's DNA. Excuse me, but under these circumstances don't you think that the DEFENCE (not the prosecution) would have been putting up a strong case for a prior relationship between the victim and offender, such a relationship would explain the presence of the DNA on RUARK's sweater! The reason that this issue never arose is because the nature of the DNA identification was Ruarks DNA (semen) found on the deceased victim.

Until you give a source for your contrary view of events, I can say the same.

I have given links to my sources, I have provided my qualification/experience to comment on the case. YOU have provided no sources, no qualification ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH except an apprently seriously flawed "investigation".

regards

Stumpy

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy
Hi Luci


Having been trained in "disclosure" issues, having had experience in applying for PII certificates I DO feel that I am qualified to comment on such issues.

Maybe you do, but your appeal to your own authority does not qualify you to actually be correct.

Because, evidently, you are not. Anyone can contact up the police with information which the police can record as anonymous, and they can and do act on that information, frequently I am really, really surprised that you, as a police officer didn't know about that. :confused:

We had another person claiming to represent the police here who was shown to be misinformed. He left shortly afterwards.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
We had another person claiming to represent the police here who was shown to be misinformed. He left shortly afterwards.

Who was this?

[Stumpy]

Luci stated:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Maybe you do, but your appeal to your own authority does not qualify you to actually be correct.

Because, evidently, you are not. Anyone can contact up the police with information which the police can record as anonymous, and they can and do act on that information, frequently I am really, really surprised that you, as a police officer didn't know about that. :confused:

We had another person claiming to represent the police here who was shown to be misinformed. He left shortly afterwards.

LOL! If you would just stop moving the goalposts for a minute, we could resolve this! Your original assertion was as follows:

You also know that they do not always have to disclose where the information came from, don't you?

If they don't know where the information came from how can they disclose the source??!! Under the circumstances that UK Police recieve anonymous information that fact is recorded as such and then DISCLOSED in the event that that information turns out to be relevant in a trial. Are you seriously suggesting that the "psychic" in the Ruark case sought anononymity bearing in mind her willingness to confirm her involvement in the case??
Do you now accept that your assertion above is erroneous? Police ALWAYS have to disclose where the information came from whether it is anonymous, a registered source, technical equipment or any other conceivable source.

I have never claimed to represent the Police, my views expressed here as a serving Police Officer are my own. It is apparent that your are hopelessly out of your depth in respect of the legal issues involved. Are you asserting that I am incorrect and your interpretation of the Law is correct? If so please state your qualification/experience or source for your opinion?

regards

Stumpy

[renata]

As Elizabeth Smart case was mentioned, here is an article I believe I posted before, but can't locate which thread.

http://kutv.com/related/local_story_318170333.html

Police and family alike continue to be inundated by calls from psychics. Ed Smart's exasperation showed when he said hundreds of thousands of psychics have reported in; Lyman said close to 600 psychics have contacted police, all with different dreams.

It would be tempting to ignore them. But even the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children warns against disregard, because psychics' purported dreams or visions may be a truth told by someone unwilling or afraid to get involved directly.

And though the same experts claim no missing child has ever been recovered with psychic information, Elizabeth Smart's family and investigators are bound to check out each one.

That's why, a week ago, Elizabeth's uncles Tom and Dave Smart walked along desolate railroad tracks near the town of Lark, long abandoned to the poisonous remains of Bingham Canyon copper mining west of Salt Lake City.

A psychic had told them Elizabeth's body lay near those tracks.



600 psychics.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy


If they don't know where the information came from how can they disclose the source??!! Under the circumstances that UK Police recieve anonymous information that fact is recorded as such and then DISCLOSED in the event that that information turns out to be relevant in a trial.



I can't believe you are really so badly misinformed :confused:

Are you trolling? The police can act on anonymous information, they do not need to disclose the name of that source. That source can remain anonymous. How on earth do you think schemes like 'Crimestoppers' works without the police acting on anonymity?

The fact is, the police can take intelligence from someone calling themselves a 'psychic' and act on it without having to say why. They do not need, or even have to go to Court and and give the source of their intelligence which leads them to make decisions which eventually solve a crime. Which, surely you must agree, this is a good thing.

As long as the police get their evidence and present it, it isnot an issue for the Court to know the source of intelligence which leads to the security and presentation of evidence.

I am really, very, very puzzled why you didn't know this.

Are you saying that are a UK Police Officer and you did not know that? :wink8:

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by renata

600 psychics.
Yes. That's why they were able to find Elizabeth's dead body so quickly.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by TLN


Originally posted by Lucianarchy
We had another person claiming to represent the police here who was shown to be misinformed. He left shortly afterwards.

Who was this?
I believe he refers to Hannibal. If Hannibal has indeed left, I doubt his leaving had anything to do with this subject. Lucianarchy pretty much ignored Hannibal's points, too...which you can see earlier in this thread.

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy:

I have given links to my sources, I have provided my qualification/experience to comment on the case. YOU have provided no sources, no qualification ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH except an apprently seriously flawed "investigation".

Reply: You gave two links to BBC News stories of the case. Needless to say none of us should bow down and revere what we hear on the news on either side of the Atlantic especially when its controlled news. In any case I sent them to Keen for comment. As it is around midnight or so in the UK dont expect a reply until tomorrow.

[Stumpy]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I can't believe you are really so badly misinformed :confused:

Are you trolling? The police can act on anonymous information, they do not need to disclose the name of that source. That source can remain anonymous. How on earth do you think schemes like 'Crimestoppers' works without the police acting on anonymity?

The fact is, the police can take intelligence from someone calling themselves a 'psychic' and act on it without having to say why. They do not need, or even have to go to Court and and give the source of their intelligence which leads them to make decisions which eventually solve a crime. Which, surely you must agree, this is a good thing.

As long as the police get their evidence and present it, it isnot an issue for the Court to know the source of intelligence which leads to the security and presentation of evidence.

I am really, very, very puzzled why you didn't know this.

Are you saying that are a UK Police Officer and you did not know that? :wink8:

ASTONISHING!!! All that time in the H.O and you apparently learnt nothing!
A source can only be anonymous where their identity is not known. How can the Police diclose the identity of an unknown person?

It is totally misleading to suggest that the Police can act on "anonymous" information. SURELY you are aware of the intelligence analysis and development proceedures required before any action can even be considered?!? BTW can you name the standard system used by UK Law Enforcement for grading intelligence?

I cannot beleive that you can assert that the Police can go straight ahead and act on the word of a psychic without having to justify why!! You really are blissfully unaware of intelligence analysis and development aren't you!

You are hopelessly wide of the mark when you suggest that the Police can withold the source of their intelligence. Where intelligence has been obtained that results in the solving of a case the Police MUST disclose the intelligence and the identity of the source to the defence OR disclose the existence of the intelligence AND disclose the source of the intelligence to the Court who then decide whether to issue a PII certificate or not to protect the source.

It is a fundamental principal that the Court are given the source of intelligence used to detect any crime. The Police can then apply to protect the source via PII certificates.

I cannot believe that you are in ignorance of these facts bearing in mind your dubious claims. These are fundamental issues written in statute!! Your failure to grasp even the basics is breathtaking!!

...now if we are talking about trolls!!

You use your poorly constucted and hopelessly inaccurate arguements focused on the minutiae of a minor issue to hide the fact that your original post was riddled with error and inaccuracies! You hint at some "inside knowledge" on the workings of UK Law Enforcement and their supposed use of psychics. Please now provide any corrobarated incident of a psychic SOLVING a UK crime. Please go and look up the "disclosure" legislation before you embarass yourself further.

Stumpy

I

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy


It is totally misleading to suggest that the Police can act on "anonymous" information.

How do you think 'Crimestoppers;, works, Officer Stumpy?

If someone rings up the police and says; " there is evidence for the weapon you are looking for under the bin at the back of Sainsbury's NE12. I am a psychic. But this will remain an anonymous tip-off."

The police can act on that intelligence, and if they get their evidence, and the evidence helps solve the crime, then, well....
perhaps you'll tell us, officer. What happens in Court? Is the evidence dismissed because it was an anonymous tip-off as to where it was found?

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


How do you think 'Crimestoppers;, works, Officer Stumpy?

If someone rings up the police and says; " there is evidence for the weapon you are looking for under the bin at the back of Sainsbury's NE12. I am a psychic. But this will remain an anonymous tip-off."

I don't want to answer for anyone here, but I think this has been covered by Stumpy:
A source can only be anonymous where their identity is not known
The police are required to give an identity if they have it. If they don't have that identity themselves, then of course they're not required to give it.

The police can act on that intelligence, and if they get their evidence, and the evidence helps solve the crime, then, well....
perhaps you'll tell us, officer. What happens in Court? Is the evidence dismissed because it was an anonymous tip-off as to where it was found?

Where was it ever implied that the evidence would be dismissed if it didn't come with an identity? The fact that police are required to give a source's identity does not mean that a source is thrown out if they don't have it. It just means that the police can't hide information about their sources from the judiciary.

FWIW, in your example, I imagine that the actual response of the police would be to try to track down the anonymous tipster. An nameless caller pointing to evidence condeming someone else just screams frame-up. What if the evidence was planted? Naming sources seems to be a corrolary of the common-law concept of the accused having the right to confront their accusers.

I don't claim to be a legal expert on either side of the pond, but it seems to me that the trend in police work is to document everything. If nothing else this is a cover-your-anatomy move for the officers involved to make sure that claims of methodological errors, undoubtedly brought up by defense lawyers all the time, are more easily contested. I just don't find it reasonable that psychics could routinely provide material help for investigations and yet never appear in the paper trail.

So there are a few possibilities regarding documented use of psychics by police:
[list=1]
There are such documents, but no one has found any to present here.
Psychic help is always given anonymously, so the sources don't appear in the documentation (although even then one would assume that the fact that a source claimed to be a psychic would be available).
Psychics are always treated as confidential sources by the police, who apply for special judicial protection to prevent their identities from being released.
Psychics are not helping police.
[/list=1]

Number 1 seems unlikely, given that many specific claims made by psychics have been investigated and never turned up such documents. Numbers 2 and 3 don't make any sense to me at all; psychics have generally been quite willing to proclaim their association with investigations. What does that leave us with?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You gave two links to BBC News stories of the case. Needless to say none of us should bow down and revere what we hear on the news on either side of the Atlantic especially when its controlled news. In any case I sent them to Keen for comment. As it is around midnight or so in the UK dont expect a reply until tomorrow.

Haven't you referred to news stories before, Steve?

I don't understand what you mean by "controlled" news. Are you implying that this is an example of censorship?

What "news" aren't "controlled"?

[Stumpy]

Luci,

You have an amazing capacity to plough on blindly without answering any questions put to you. I've demonstrated my willingness to answer all of your questions. You have answered NONE of mine. I despair that you can't grasp these simple concepts despite your alleged experience in the H.O!!

FutileJester who, I am guessing, has had no experience in UK LE has grasped the concept of disclosure very quickly.

You could have really tried to give a credible hypothetical situation for me to comment on, or better still and actual example of a Psychic pinpointing the location of a murder weapon with such precision. Do you rely on hypotheticals because there has been NO occurences of such situations?

The ludicrous hypothetical situation you propose has already been catered for in my previous posting as FutileJester correctly points out. Go back CAREFULLY re-read it (take as much time as you like) see if you can get your devastatingly analytical mind around the concept.

Put simply, when someone phones up crimestoppers a form is completed including the identity of the source if known, marked up as anonymous if unknown. That form is disclosable to the Court in the event that the information contained in it becomes relevant to the case.

How difficult is this to understand? If you really can't grasp this please stop bugging me and go and research this area that you obviously have no understanding/experience of whatsoever.

Please now address the numerous question that I have posed for you.

Start with answering this one: As your only area of dispute with me appears to be regarding "disclosure", do you conceed that I was correct in all the other issues I raised? Then progress to the other questions I have asked of you.

Stumpy

[reprise]

FutileJester, links have been posted in both this and the other thread to the notes made by Investigator Hewitt in the Williston case.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Stumpy: You misinterpreted the information, I am not an EX UK Police Officer, I am very much a current UK Police Officer.

Reply: When one talks about two periods of time in the past, e.g. 12 and 16 years, one gets the impression one is talking about the past. Hence my faulty assumption, I apologize for jumping to that. However, it pays to be more specific.



Oh Dear. LOL!

2+2=5.

These guys are priceless. Trying to blame Stumpy for his own false assumption. Can't even apologies with good grace.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


How do you think 'Crimestoppers;, works, Officer Stumpy?

If someone rings up the police and says; " there is evidence for the weapon you are looking for under the bin at the back of Sainsbury's NE12. I am a psychic. But this will remain an anonymous tip-off."

The police can act on that intelligence, and if they get their evidence, and the evidence helps solve the crime, then, well....
perhaps you'll tell us, officer. What happens in Court? Is the evidence dismissed because it was an anonymous tip-off as to where it was found? There is no need to say the information came from a psychic. The fact that there is no Sainsburys in NE12 gives this away ;).

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Stumpy
Luci,

You have an amazing capacity to plough on blindly without answering any questions put to you. I've demonstrated my willingness to answer all of your questions. You have answered NONE of mine. I despair that you can't grasp these simple concepts despite your alleged experience in the H.O!!

FutileJester who, I am guessing, has had no experience in UK LE has grasped the concept of disclosure very quickly.

You could have really tried to give a credible hypothetical situation for me to comment on, or better still and actual example of a Psychic pinpointing the location of a murder weapon with such precision. Do you rely on hypotheticals because there has been NO occurences of such situations?

The ludicrous hypothetical situation you propose has already been catered for in my previous posting as FutileJester correctly points out. Go back CAREFULLY re-read it (take as much time as you like) see if you can get your devastatingly analytical mind around the concept.

Put simply, when someone phones up crimestoppers a form is completed including the identity of the source if known, marked up as anonymous if unknown. That form is disclosable to the Court in the event that the information contained in it becomes relevant to the case.

How difficult is this to understand? If you really can't grasp this please stop bugging me and go and research this area that you obviously have no understanding/experience of whatsoever.

Please now address the numerous question that I have posed for you.

Start with answering this one: As your only area of dispute with me appears to be regarding "disclosure", do you conceed that I was correct in all the other issues I raised? Then progress to the other questions I have asked of you.

Stumpy

Stumpy,


I'm afraid you are wasting your time mate. Hannibal spent days and days trying to explain the obvious to Luci. You may as well speak to a brick wall. Eventually she will just stop responding, having failed to answer the growing list of questions raised by her lack of understanding.

Then, months later someone will mention police and psychics again and she will trot out the Police Federation article onec more and announce that 'we sceptics' have proved that pychics are useful.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy
Luci,

You have an amazing capacity to plough on blindly without answering any questions put to you. I've demonstrated my willingness to answer all of your questions. You have answered NONE of mine. I despair that you can't grasp these simple concepts despite your alleged experience in the H.O!!

FutileJester who, I am guessing, has had no experience in UK LE has grasped the concept of disclosure very quickly.

You could have really tried to give a credible hypothetical situation for me to comment on, or better still and actual example of a Psychic pinpointing the location of a murder weapon with such precision. Do you rely on hypotheticals because there has been NO occurences of such situations?

The ludicrous hypothetical situation you propose has already been catered for in my previous posting as FutileJester correctly points out. Go back CAREFULLY re-read it (take as much time as you like) see if you can get your devastatingly analytical mind around the concept.

Put simply, when someone phones up crimestoppers a form is completed including the identity of the source if known, marked up as anonymous if unknown. That form is disclosable to the Court in the event that the information contained in it becomes relevant to the case.

How difficult is this to understand? If you really can't grasp this please stop bugging me and go and research this area that you obviously have no understanding/experience of whatsoever.

Please now address the numerous question that I have posed for you.

Start with answering this one: As your only area of dispute with me appears to be regarding "disclosure", do you conceed that I was correct in all the other issues I raised? Then progress to the other questions I have asked of you.

Stumpy

After, officer Stumpy, you have conceed the first point, that you were wrong about the police always having to reveal and name the source of any information which they act on.

This is quite an honourable and reasonable thing for you to do, Stumpy, and critical if there is any rational basis for further discussion as you have appealed to your own authority on many occaisions here and been proved that you have been wrong in what you claim as a UK Police Officer. It is a serious offence for a Police Officer to promote misleading information. Were you trying to deter or hinder anonymous psychics from calling the police with information which could otherwise help with a criminal investigation? :confused:

[reprise]

It is a serious offence for a Police Officer to promote misleading information. :confused:

I can't wait to see a cite backing up that claim.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


After, officer Stumpy, you have conceed the first point, that you were wrong about the police always having to reveal and name the source of any information which they act on.

This is quite an honourable and reasonable thing for you to do, Stumpy, and critical if there is any rational basis for further discussion as you have appealed to your own authority on many occaisions here and been proved that you have been wrong in what you claim as a UK Police Officer. It is a serious offence for a Police Officer to promote misleading information. Were you trying to deter or hinder anonymous psychics from calling the police with information which could otherwise help with a criminal investigation? :confused: Luci,

You have lost me. Could you please tell me what the 'first point was.'

I have not seen Stumoy change what he said. That police need in court to inform the source of all information, unless specific exemption has been sought. Where the information is anonymous they need to say so.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


After, officer Stumpy, you have conceed the first point, that you were wrong about the police always having to reveal and name the source of any information which they act on.

This is quite an honourable and reasonable thing for you to do, Stumpy, and critical if there is any rational basis for further discussion as you have appealed to your own authority on many occaisions here and been proved that you have been wrong in what you claim as a UK Police Officer. It is a serious offence for a Police Officer to promote misleading information. Were you trying to deter or hinder anonymous psychics from calling the police with information which could otherwise help with a criminal investigation? :confused:

Luci,

You seem to trying to invoke the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy. This does not apply to people commenting directly on their own area of expertise! I'd say a police officer commenting on police procedures is a pretty reasonable thing to do!

Typically the appeal to authority fallacy applies to a situation where pronouncements by an expert in one feild are used to attempt to validat an opinion in another feild (eg..Cherie Blair beleives in astrolgy so it must be true...).

[Stumpy]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


After, officer Stumpy, you have conceed the first point, that you were wrong about the police always having to reveal and name the source of any information which they act on.

This is quite an honourable and reasonable thing for you to do, Stumpy, and critical if there is any rational basis for further discussion as you have appealed to your own authority on many occaisions here and been proved that you have been wrong in what you claim as a UK Police Officer. It is a serious offence for a Police Officer to promote misleading information. Were you trying to deter or hinder anonymous psychics from calling the police with information which could otherwise help with a criminal investigation? :confused:

Oh I see!! You have applied your richly analytical mind to the problem and deduced the following:
The Police don't have to reveal the identity of a source where they don't actually know the identity of that source.
Astonishing deduction my dear Watson. Straight from from the font of the blindingly obvious! Oh My! How foolish I feel for not conceeding this shocking piece of Police duplicity. We obstruct the legal process by failing to name people whose name we don't actually know. On this astonishing piece of deductive reasoning you conclude therefore that the Police regularly employ psychics to solve crime then cunningly pretend we don't know who they are and perpetuate this subterfuge in a Court of Law and then the media.

Absolutely NO hint of an answer to all the other questions put to you? Damn I've been trolled rotten and didn't even spot it, no wonder my colleagues and I forced to use psychics to solve crime. Honestly I'm so thick sometimes.

It is a serious offence for a Police Officer to promote misleading information.

Oh please dip into your encyclopedic mind of Statue and Legal Proceedure and tell me the "serious offence" that I have committed. Does this law apply only to Police Officers or does it apply also to people such as yourself? If so, you should be greatly concerned bearing in mind the astonishingly inaccuracies contained in your previous posts.

GUYS!!!! I'm a newbie here, you could have warned me sooner about her!:D :D

For those genuinely interested there is actually a National Guideline for UK Law Enforcement in respect of the use of "psychics" - every English and Welsh force area is bound by these guidelines. I will obtain a copy of it and report back. Any guesses as to whether it advocates or not the use of "psychics"?

Stumpy

[CFLarsen]

Stumpy,

Check your mailbox here. :)

[Stumpy]

CF

Have emailed you

stumpy

[SteveGrenard]

Thank you for sending me the commentary by your detective friend. I can only deal with the observations I made, not any you may have added, of course.

I'll deal with your correspondent's points in the order you transmitted them.

1. Tony Batters was the principal detective involved. He was part of Lundy's team. Batters forced entry into the flat and found the body, spent five hours there, making elaborate notes, and was a principal witness at the eventual trial. I used the expression "principal detective involved" in the sense in
which it would be commonly understood. Lundy's role is, of course, mentioned in the paper which Guy Playfair and I have written for the Journal of the SPR, and which your correspondent could not have seen. For reasons given below, this
is entirely irrelevant

2. The DNA evidence. I quote from our report: "The findings [DNA analysis] were completely conclusive, identifying numerous exchanges of bodily fluids, skin cells and clothing fibres between the victim and her killer, Pokie Ruark.... There were 46 such matches." All this is likewise irrelevant to the question whether Christine Holohan did or did not receive accurate information which could not have come normally from any living source. Your correspondent would do well to give priority to discovering exactly what she said during the interview with Batters and Smith and addressing himself to examining possible normal sources, than deal with matters which have no bearing on the question at
issue.

3. Belief that only repetition of her success will authenticate Holohan's abilities or claims is based on the assumption that all evidence must comply with the usual requirements of ordinary laboratory type experiments. We are simply not entitled to disregard the large number of veridical statements made in
this case because of some belief that a similar number in a fictional identical murder case has not been found. In any event Batters himself has confirmed to us that Holohan "has since given the police very pertinent information regarding location of murder victim's body, verified when found in Hampshire Sept.
2001; has also assisted Irish police and individuals re property. However, this too has no bearing on the question at issue.

4. At the very preliminary stage of the inquiry when Batters and Smith were interviewing Holohan, Ruark was not a prime suspect. He was known to Smith as a local villain, but with no record of violence. He had already gone to the police voluntarily and produced a plausible alibi. It was only following the
interview with Holohan that Batters considered that they should take a closer look at Ruark, who was then interviewed at length by Lundy. Again, not relevant.

5. There are four sources from which it is reasonable to deduce that Ruark was not Poole's lover. One is her resistance to the rape. Another is the fact that she had a lover, George Lee, who was in custody in a detention centre at the time. With Lee, Poole had frequented a pub called The Windmill, where
Ruark and his fiancee Sarah Carrie were also part of the crowd. Ruark needed money to buy a ring for his engagement to Carrie the following Monday. They later married and divorced. The third reason is that according to Batters, Poole had told a close friend of her rejection of Ruark's attempts to flirt with her while George was in custody. Finally, and by no means least persuasively,
there are the several statements to this effect by Holohan. It would be irrational to reject these while acknowledging the accuracy of everything else she said (save for the minor confusion of Saturday with Friday night as the time of the murder). One might also ask what evidence either the BBC or prosecuting
counsel had for the assertion that Ruark was Poole's lover.

6. Hot and cold reading: This is about the only relevant issue. Hot reading implies prior knowledge. Match this against the large number of detailed and accurate statements made, and the claim becomes so self evidently absurd that it is a waste of time disputing it. Your correspondent has obviously not seen
the analysed list of statements, with Batters helpful and revealing comments.


7. Identification of the Principal Detective. This has been dealt with above, but I am bewildered to know how your correspondent thinks he knows what Guy Playfair and I had written in our quite lengthy report.

8. As for bandying qualifications, these again are irrelevant to the issue. However, I have in my time been a magistrates court reporter, an investigative journalist of more than half a century's experience, the head of the legal department of the country's largest trade association — and someone specialising
in the task of distinguishing fact from fiction, and the evasion of unwelcome facts from honest confrontation. Playfair is a distinguished psychical researcher, very familiar with the tricks of the fraudsters and with police investigative procedures - as his several books show.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there is no mystery regarding my own take on the possibility of hot reading by the medium in this case and Stumpy's assertion they lived quite near each other (same large estate, not near each other) made me wonder if the Holohan had witnessed something or saw the suspect or knew the suspect and then used a psychic scenario to prevent her from having to lodge evidence and testify directly. If this were true and Holohan knew the killer, at some point by now Ruark would've exposed her or acknowledged her but he has not done so. I grant she still could've been a witness without Ruark's knowledge and resorted to the psychic subtrefuge in order to keep herself out of it. Since the police didn't see through this at the time and they closed the investgation in 15 months without an arrest, this is probably not the case.

Again, when the final report of this is published, there will be time then to discuss, refute or confirm these issues.

Thank you Stumpy for referencing the BBC reports on this (which Keen and Playfair have seen) and lending your expertise to a discussion of this case. Many of the things you brought up are utterly irrelevant to the central concern of whether or not a psychic had been contacted by the murdered Poole and had told her who the killer was; we know her report was taken, and ignored.

I need to ask you Stumpy, as a detective investigating a murder... if someone such as Holohan contacted you with the specific kind of information, even inferring she got it psychially, would you follow up on it in greater detail or ignore it? Even if you don't believe in psychics, do you believe in the possibility that Holohan wanted to remain out of it as a witness, for fear of reprisals, and concocted this story because her witnessing of the
murder or the suspect leaving Pooles flat weighed heavily on her conscious? I really think the police may've missed the boat on this one back then. And perhaps Stumpy that's what this is all about, eh? I hope not. Monday morning quarterbacking, as we say here in the U.S., is what I am doing and I apologize for that.
But it can be instructive for future handling of such contacts by the police.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by reprise
FutileJester, links have been posted in both this and the other thread to the notes made by Investigator Hewitt in the Williston case.

Ah yes, thanks! I did try to scan the thread before posting, but missed your link in the chaff.

[FutileJester]

I realize I'm coming into this late, and that this is probably the 37th thread on this for regulars, but here's my two cents...

Obviously some police officers do feel that psychics have helped their investigations. The next question then is: Did those psychics provide information that would not have been known otherwise?

If they did it seems to me that this would have to turn up in a court transcript eventually. When the defense attorney asks the officer why he looked in the dumpster for the shirt with the lipstick on it, he is obliged to say a psychic told him if that's what happened. The defense can then go on to ask questions like: Was this psychic investigated for possible connections to the crime? Was this psychic questioned about ways he/she might have known this information within normal means? Is there any connection between the psychic and the suspect or victim? Etc.

The answers to these questions aren't important for us here, just the fact that they would be in a transcript of court proceedings. Does anyone know of such transcripts? Enquiring minds want to know!

In the absence of these transcripts, we have to assume (oh jeez, another list, sorry!):
[list=1]
Psychics provided knowledge that police already knew, so that a questioned officer on the stand would give the earlier (non-psychic) source.
Psychics have only provided unique information on cases (such as missing persons) where there is no court proceeding and therefore no opportunity for the claim to be challenged and court-documented.
Defense counsel have not asked officers for sources in cases where psychics were the sole source for unique information.
Officers have lied about sources when questioned.
Psychic sources are always anonymous, or given special protection against revelation of identity.
[/list=1]

2 seems suspciously convenient, and contradicts the many psychics who have claimed to help with criminal cases. 3 and 4 would imply repeated incopetence and outright perjury. 5 is obviously incorrect because of the many public claims by psychics about helping police. This leaves psychics telling police things that they already know; although they MAY do this by psychic means, I reserve the right to be unamazed by this.

[davidhorman]

Steve,

Hot reading implies prior knowledge. Match this against the large number of detailed and accurate statements made, and the claim becomes so self evidently absurd that it is a waste of time disputing it.

I'm not really paying attention to this thread, but what I've quoted you saying (edit: the title of your post indicates you're quoting someone else - didn't spot it first time around) sounds a bit odd to me. The guy got lots of stuff right, therefore you conclude it's less likely he had prior knowledge?

David

[SteveGrenard]

Yes, it wasn't me. I was forwarding a post from one of the authors of a paper on this case. Secondly it was not a guy. Holohan was a woman. I think we about covered all the pros and cons on this case and as I indicated when the paper appears in print it may be time to revisit them.

I dont have the medium', er a woman (Holohan)'s transcript handy which is what Detective Batters got when he interviewed her so at the moment cannot comment. The original prefatory remarks including this are in an earlier post I forwarded as well as in he Police Federation magazine article, a link to which was also posted.

However, the researchers conclude that based on the information given by Holohan, which included insider details of the case, the medium would have had to have first hand knowledge which, clearly she did not. Another was sucessfully prosecuted and convicted and neither he nor his defense lawyers ever implicated her. He was convicted on the basis of DNA evidence from 46 different sources that were matched.

[Stumpy]

Hi Steve

Tony Batters was the principal detective involved. He was part of Lundy's team. Batters forced entry into the flat and found the body, spent five hours there, making elaborate notes, and was a principal witness at the eventual trial. I used the expression "principal detective involved" in the sense in which it would be commonly understood

Tony Battens was NOT the principal detective involved. The common understanding of this term, at least in the UK, is that this would be the person in charge of the investigation.

Lundy's role is, of course, mentioned in the paper which Guy Playfair and I have written for the Journal of the SPR

Hang on a minute Steve you stated earlier The case was indpendently investigated by Keen and Playfair and they talked to everyone involved.

This meticulous investigation where all parties were spoken to only warrants a mere mention of the Officer in chargeof the case. This is the ONLY officer who would have had access to ALL the information involved in the case.

The DNA evidence. I quote from our report: "The findings [DNA analysis] were completely conclusive, identifying numerous exchanges of bodily fluids, skin cells and clothing fibres between the victim and her killer, Pokie Ruark.... There were 46 such matches."

There is no dispute that the DNA evidence was the cornerstone of the prosecution case. Interestingly no mention is now made of the discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark. It was the DNA material on this garment which was the evidence that put Ruark behind bars.

Is M.Keen now distancing himself from this basic error? The DNA match was between semen on the victim's body and a DNA sample provided by Ruark many years later NOT his sweater. This sweater is pivotal to the Keen case in that he alleges that it was the intervention of the psychic that lead Battens to seize the sweater which in turn yielded the DNA evidence.

Your correspondent would do well to give priority to discovering exactly what she said during the interview with Batters and Smith and addressing himself to examining possible normal sources, than deal with matters which have no bearing on the question at issue.

These apparently peripheral issues are in fact crucial to establishing how vigorous and precise M.Keen is in his investigation and conclusions. A flawed investigation will inevitably lead to a flawed conclusion. M.Keen implies that a sloppy investigation is perfectly acceptable as long as the "right" result is achieved. I disagree.

Belief that only repetition of her success will authenticate Holohan's abilities or claims is based on the assumption that all evidence must comply with the usual requirements of ordinary laboratory type experiments. We are simply not entitled to disregard the large number of veridical statements made in this case because of some belief that a similar number in a fictional identical murder case has not been found.

So the pursuit of "best evidence" is redundant in this particular meticulous investigation? No investigation of whether there are other successes or indeed failures by said psychic?

In any event Batters himself has confirmed to us that Holohan "has since given the police very pertinent information regarding location of murder victim's body, verified when found in Hampshire Sept.

OH! Repitition of her success is now relevant where it suits the investigation? I assume that this has been verified with Hampshire Police during the meticulous investigation? The use of the term "confirmed" indicates that the assetion was already known to the investigators and Batters has confirmed it? Please give details of the Hampshire enquiry, working with UK Law Enforcement as I do I will quickly be able to establish the veracity of this assertion.

has also assisted Irish police and individuals re property. However, this too has no bearing on the question at issue.

I assume that this has been verified with Irish Police during the meticulous investigation? Details please! I have a colleague in the Garda, just to satisy my curiosity you undertand? How can apparent evidence of psychic ability of an individual have no bearing on the question of whether that individual has psychic ability???!!

At the very preliminary stage of the inquiry when Batters and Smith were interviewing Holohan, Ruark was not a prime suspect.

Only the SIO can allocate the "prime suspect" status to any individual. A many cases the decision is not communicated to the investigating team to prevent "tunnel vision". Therefore this information has come from Det Supt Lundy?

It was only following the interview with Holohan that Batters considered that they should take a closer look at Ruark, who was then interviewed at length by Lundy.

An extraordinary breach of Police proceedure (if true). The SIO does not get involved in the interview of suspects!!

There are four sources from which it is reasonable to deduce that Ruark was not Poole's lover.

But none of them are the SIO or the "official files" of the case. The truth of the matter is contained here, both the SIO and files would contain the definive answer with supporting evidence, you claim to have had access to both but instead rely on pure speculation!

One might also ask what evidence either the BBC or prosecuting counsel had for the assertion that Ruark was Poole's lover.

Once again the "official files" or "public records" that the investigators claim to have had access to will provide this. The mere fact that this assertion wasn't challenged by the defence is indicative that it was backed up with evidence!

. Hot reading implies prior knowledge. Match this against the large number of detailed and accurate statements made, and the claim becomes so self evidently absurd that it is a waste of time disputing it.

See davidhorman's perceptive response above!

I am bewildered to know how your correspondent thinks he knows what Guy Playfair and I had written in our quite lengthy report.

I am assuming that the claims made in Your earlier post Steve are part of the investigation and will therefore be part of the report. If not, what is he playing at?

I need to ask you Stumpy, as a detective investigating a murder... if someone such as Holohan contacted you with the specific kind of information, even inferring she got it psychially, would you follow up on it in greater detail or ignore it?

We are under an obligation to follow up all information provided to us whatever the source. Is someone contacted us during a murder enquiry claiming to be a Hobbit from Middle Earth we would still be obliged to follow it up!

But it an be instructive for future handling of such contacts by the police.

There is now a national guideline on such contacts for UK LE, presumably this is based on the previous effectiveness or not of such contacts. I have not read the guideline but will obtain a copy and report back.

Any idea when M.Keen's report will be published?

Stumpy

[SteveGrenard]

Since M Keen and G Playfair do not intend to air or vet their entire paper on JREF or anywhere else prior to publication, in spite of pre-publication interest in the case, it is why I state, and now for the third time, that you best wait for the publication to appear.

In addition the authors are not playing at anything but are not vetting the entire study and to be published paper in a second hand series of posts. They cannot backtrack or change anything that isnt in the submitted paper unless the peer reviewers ask for more information or sources; their investigation centered on the psychic evidence and Dets Batters/Smith who interviewed the psychic. They spoke with Batters and examined his notes of the interview. Lundy was not directly involved in taking down this testimony. So while the rest of the case may be interesting to you, it is not and never has been about anything other than this aspect which, coincidentally, is also the subject matter of this thread. What the SIO knew, now knows and what the men under him now know is probably everything since the case is now closed and the perpetrator behind bars for good.

The paper is being peer reviewed. My experience indicates it should appear in a year or so. The JSPR is a quarterly.

Thank you for checking into the guidelines UK Police have in dealing wth purported psychic informants. That should be interesting.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy


Oh I see!! You have applied your richly analytical mind to the problem and deduced the following:
The Police don't have to reveal the identity of a source where they don't actually know the identity of that source.
Astonishing deduction my dear Watson. Straight from from the font of the blindingly obvious! Oh My! How foolish I feel for not conceeding this shocking piece of Police duplicity.


Indeed. Very foolish. The police can act on anonymus information recieved and act on it to help solve a crime. A psychic who does not make a living out of it, someone who works with scientific researchers, someone with credibility, would logically want to remain anonymous. If the police acted on such intelligence and found that it was helpful, they would also want to make sure that anonymity was ensured from an operational point of view.


We obstruct the legal process by failing to name people whose name we don't actually know. On this astonishing piece of deductive reasoning you conclude therefore that the Police regularly employ psychics to solve crime then cunningly pretend we don't know who they are and perpetuate this subterfuge in a Court of Law and then the media.


Those are your words, not mine. :rolleyes:


Absolutely NO hint of an answer to all the other questions put to you?


If I make a claim, feel free to ask a reasonable and rational question on that specific claim under the thread it was raised and I will do my best to give you a reasonable and rational answer.



Damn I've been trolled rotten and didn't even spot it, no wonder my colleagues and I forced to use psychics to solve crime.



Who said anything about "forced", officer Stumpy?


Honestly I'm so thick sometimes.



Those are your words, not mine.


Oh please dip into your encyclopedic mind of Statue and Legal Proceedure and tell me the "serious offence" that I have committed.


I have not said that you have commited an offence, you may have just been ignorant of the fact I had to correct you on regarding the police being able to act on anonymous informatio


Originally posted by Stumpy

"It is totally misleading to suggest that the Police can act on "anonymous" information. " (*)



No, it isn't.

Put simply, when someone phones up crimestoppers a form is completed including the identity of the source if known, or marked up as anonymous if unknown. The police can and do act on that anonymous information.



Does this law apply only to Police Officers or does it apply also to people such as yourself?
If so, you should be greatly concerned bearing in mind the astonishingly inaccuracies contained in your previous posts.



Please quote my claim.




GUYS!!!! I'm a newbie here, you could have warned me sooner about her!:D :D



I, officer Stumpy, am a skeptic. You, appeal to your own authority and make misleading claims. (*)



For those genuinely interested there is actually a National Guideline for UK Law Enforcement in respect of the use of "psychics" - every English and Welsh force area is bound by these guidelines. I will obtain a copy of it and report back. Any guesses as to whether it advocates or not the use of "psychics"?

Stumpy

Please do. I believe it does not suggest that police officers should refuse to act on information from someone just because they say they are psychic.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by FutileJester



[...]psychics have generally been quite willing to proclaim their association with investigations.

Maybe some would seek fame for personal gain.
Why would a good, accurate, psychic 'supergrass' want to make themselves a known target? :confused: Don't you think that a successful, known, police psychic could be a target for someone who didn't want to be detected by a psychic :confused:

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
[B]
Indeed. Very foolish. The police can act on anonymus information recieved and act on it to help solve a crime. A psychic who does not make a living out of it, someone who works with scientific researchers, someone with credibility, would logically want to remain anonymous. If the police acted on such intelligence and found that it was helpful, they would also want to make sure that anonymity was ensured from an operational point of view.
[B]
So are you now saying that any psychic who claims to have helped police, and is identified by name (not anonymous) is either: a.) making a living out of it; b.) is not working with scientific researchers; and c.) has no credibility?

Color me confused. :confused:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny

So are you now saying that any psychic who claims to have helped police, and is identified by name (not anonymous) is either: a.) making a living out of it; b.) is not working with scientific researchers; and c.) has no credibility?



No. Why do you think that?

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
A psychic who does not make a living out of it, someone who works with scientific researchers, someone with credibility, would logically want to remain anonymous.

I think that because you stated the above.

Your statement is that professional, credible psychics who work with scientific researchers would want to remain anonymous.

The implication is, therefore, that those that choose not to remain anonymous are therefore not professional (making a living at it), are not credible, or are not working with scientific researchers.

See why I'm confused?

[SteveGrenard]

If (Det. S.) is implying that two of the detectives involved in the interview with Holohan are lying, or have fabricated the evidence, and that the extensive notes of the interview during the course of which some 120 accurate statements were made was made up or substantially altered in order to make a good story, or for any other reason, please let him say so, reveal his name and address and give his reasons for this belief. In the process he might at least get Batters' name right and be kind enough to draw my attention to any criticism he may have sent to or had published in the police journal which printed Batters' article in December 2001, or at least explain why he has taken l8 months to raise these issues. (Keen to SG)

If he is not implying anything of the sort, then he would have to provide a plausible normal explanation for Holohan's ability to give a detailed account of the appearance of the victim's appartment, of the victim herself, her position and injuries and dress and jewellery, of the murderer, his age, complexion, height, occupation, recent insurance swindle, nature of the tattoo on his arm, why she should have frequently mentioned Terry, Poole's elder brother to whom she was particularly close, or the name of Barbara Stone, whom the police were unable to trace, and whose identity and relationship was not discovered until after Ruark's trial. Who told her that the fight started in the bathroom, that two teacups were not stored away and that one had coffee in it, that Ruark had a small, dark haired pretty girl friend etc etc?
(Keen to SG)

These and another hundred similar questions are the only issues to be addressed. (Keen)


SG: Tony Batters was the principal detective involved. He was part of Lundy's team. Batters forced entry into the flat and found the body, spent five hours there, making elaborate notes, and was a principal witness at the eventual trial. Keen & Playfair use the expression "principal detective involved" in the sense in which it would be commonly understood. This obsession with minutiae over principal detective and SIO is reminescent of the kind of waylaying and diversion practiced by Claus Larsen who I am sure would like to do a story on this for his skeptic report.

SIO Lundy was a supervisor, not ground troops. Keen and Playfair spoke to the troops, not their boss.



Keen: We never claimed to have talked to everyone involved: only those persons whose evidence was material to the issue we were examining - the two policemen who conducted the interviews with Holohan and Holohan herself.

(SG: they talked to everyone involved in the matter of the psychic evidence: Batters, Smith and Holohan. Lundy did not hear it, did not take it down ....he got it from Batters and Smith. I am sorry if you took this to mean the entirety of the case which would then have include forensics specialists, lawyers, judges, jailers, etc etc.) The focus here is ONLY of the psychic aspect of this case and
anything else is irrelevant given the extensive information provided by Holohan.

Remember: Lundy was not present at the interviews with Holohan. That is what the report is about. Batters and Smith were. (Keen previously to SG)

It is neither a basic error nor material to the evidence of paranormal communication (please remember this is what the report is about) whether the sweater did or did not provide some of the threads bearing evidence of Poole's DNA, to supplement that from Ruark found under her fingernails and the direct tests of Ruark's DNA, as we understand was the case. Batters says that it was his conviction that Ruark must have been guilty that led him to take the discarded garment. I see no reason to doubt his word. Obviously your correspondent does. It is immaterial.
(Keen)

(SG: the psychic did not mention the sweater?)

Det. S. would do well to give priority to discovering exactly what Holohan said during the interview with Batters and Smith and addressing himself to examining possible normal source rather than deal with matters which have no bearing on the question at issue. If he decides to do a piece for the Skeptic Report or Police Federation magazine I strongly advise him to engage in such research first rather than in arm chair theorizing and appealing to his own authority. (SG)


Belief that only repetition of Holohan's success will authenticate her abilities or claims is based on the assumption that all evidence must comply with the usual requirements of ordinary laboratory type experiments. We are simply not entitled to disregard the large number of veridical statements made in this case because of some belief that a similar number in a fictional identical murder case has not been found. (Keen)

Det. S: So the pursuit of "best evidence" is redundant in this particular meticulous investigation? No investigation of whether there are other successes or indeed failures by said psychic?


Reply: The Garda protect their informants and would not wish to discuss this sensitive source of information, especially in what is still nominally a Roman Catholic country, with outsiders. I have no reason to doubt the word of Batters, who has visited Ireland (as I have) and been provided this information. Has your correspondent? (Keen)

(SG note: There is only one case under discussion and it stands and falls on its own. This is not a survey.)


Det. S: An extraordinary breach of Police proceedure (if true). The SIO does not get involved in the interview of suspects!!

SG: You would have to ask Lundy this. According to the police that were interviewed including Batters, Lundy did interview him.

It was only following the interview with Holohan that Batters considered that they should take a closer look at Ruark, who was then interviewed at length by Lundy. (Keen)

SG: You would think that if Ruark were Poole's lover it wouldn't take the police 10-15 years to find that out but that is what the BBC, QC, and you, Det S, would now have us believe. This was a pure robbery, rape and murder inflicted by one bad character on an acquaintance, not a lover. But frankly it has nothng to do with the psychic testimony being examined. The psychic did not bring up a lover, but rather information pointing at Pokie Ruark. You're a detective S, wouldn't you start by talking to Poole's friends and neighbors, asking them about her other friends or visitors? How long do you think it would take the police, making routine inqueries as they say, to have found out Poole had a lover and it was Pokie? At the time when the crime ocurred? One day, two days, a week? How about never.? It never was determined. Now more than a decade later, LOL, this is suddenly brought up?
If you believe that, you need a skeptic check.








.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny

I think that because you stated the above.

Your statement is that professional, credible psychics who work with scientific researchers would want to remain anonymous.

The implication is, therefore, that those that choose not to remain anonymous are therefore not professional (making a living at it), are not credible, or are not working with scientific researchers.

See why I'm confused?

Yes, you have turned "a psychic" into all "psychics".:rolleyes:

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Yes, you have turned "a psychic" into all "psychics".:rolleyes:
Thanks. Your explanation helps me see what you originally meant.

No need to roll your eyes though. Question asked. Question answered, no?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny

Thanks. Your explanation helps me see what you originally meant.


OK, no problem.

[Lucianarchy]

I believe that the Survival Science forum 'criminal profiling' section ( or similar title), shorlty before closing its doors, had a request from a named UK police officer, complete with contact details, for help in certain cases.

I guess all these details are perhaps lost. But perhaps, Dr. Grenard could confirm, or otherwise, the status of that request for help from the UK police?

Dr Grenard, could you clarify?

[SteveGrenard]

I do not recall any requests from a U.K. law enforcement source although some members were working on a U.K. case. The information they provided was passed along via normal channels.

[Lucianarchy]

OK, thanks. I expect your memory is better than mine. I suppose there is no way of checking the archives is there?

[SteveGrenard]

No, these archives ceased to exist in the public space and have been recorded privately. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, a pact was developed between mediums and the organizers never to disclose any information. This includes law enforcement contacts. As far as anyone is concerned, and there is no problem with this, they just don't exist and it would take a court order to obtain them if they did. The cynics can say whatever they wish about this policy, it is non-negotiable.

No claims are being made for any cases with which the group was or is involved.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No, these archives ceased to exist in the public space and have been recorded privately. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, a pact was developed between mediums and the organizers never to disclose any information. This includes law enforcement contacts. As far as anyone is concerned, and there is no problem with this, they just don't exist and it would take a court order to obtain them if they did. The cynics can say whatever they wish about this policy, it is non-negotiable.



Yes, OK. Quite understandable.

Thank you for your help.

[Mike D.]

A claim that a spirit returned to confront those who killed him:

http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?id=22594&pubdate=2003-07-05

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No, these archives ceased to exist in the public space and have been recorded privately. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, a pact was developed between mediums and the organizers never to disclose any information. This includes law enforcement contacts. As far as anyone is concerned, and there is no problem with this, they just don't exist and it would take a court order to obtain them if they did. The cynics can say whatever they wish about this policy, it is non-negotiable.

No claims are being made for any cases with which the group was or is involved.

If there is any information in that archive that can help solve just one crime, you are obstructing justice. You are, in fact, helping criminals.

If there is no information in that archive that can help solve just one crime, that is further proof that no psychic has ever been able to solve crimes.

Which is it, Steve?

[SteveGrenard]

The answer to your question is, frankly Larsen, none of your business. However it was answered above anyway. Details
for your benefit are NOT available.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The answer to your question is, frankly Larsen, none of your business. However it was answered above anyway. Details for your benefit are NOT available.

I didn't ask for details. I asked if there is - or not - information in the archive that can help solve a crime.

If you deliberately obstruct justice, Steve, people should know. Schwartz is one of them. The police is another.

If, on the other hand, there is no information whatsoever in the archive, people should also know. It's just one more piece of evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist.

[SteveGrenard]

Once again, for your poor reading comprehension skills, I restate that you, nor anyone here in a public forum populated by people with names like arcticpigeon, stumpy, jj or whatever do not have a need to know this and I am really interested why you think this is not the case. Do you really think this forum is a secure environment for publishing such information? If so, you are deluded. BTW unless you insist that your authors sign their real names, your skeptic report website also lacks real credibility as well. Your poor reading comprehension skills failed to catch the part where I said all such information was passed along through normal channels [at the time].If you need an explanation of that you have even a poorer understanding of language than I thought based on your history of misrepresentation, miscomprehension and misattribution. You are not even in the U.S., not a citizen here and live in a foreign country right now. None of whatever information is in such archives, if they exist, impacts on you. Believe me I would be the first to let you know if it did. So please don't exhibit that paranoia you are so famous for such as worrying about deportation if you let Brian Hurst read you under an assumed name. How pathetically lame that was.

Let's take a hypothetical on your request for information. First of all, I said above. No claims are being made. If information is supplied making a claim it would be followed by a demand for details. The details are not available. You agree that they were not requested by you. You cannot have both. Details would be a necessary ingredient in supporting any claims. Therefore it was the decision of the group working on this NOT to release any information, whether detailed or not. Information is passed along through channels to LE that have been established or existed beforehand. You needn't worry about this anymore so run along and play now. But thanks for your concern.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

You can filibuster and make personal attacks all you like.

I did not ask you to publish any names, cases or anything that can be traced back to any sensitive information.

I asked if there is information in the archive that can help solve a crime.

It's a simple question: Yes or no?

[SteveGrenard]

Once agin, for your poor reading skills, the following will be answered:


Larsen: It's a simple question: Yes or no?

Reply: We make no claims.

Is that simple and clear enough for you.

I also forgot to mention: there is no archive. I said above, it has ceased to exist and if it did, only a court order would be able to
obtain it. Ergo your demand is moot.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

You are panicking.

You said these archives had ceased to exist in the public space. You also said that they have - present tense - been recorded privately.

Ergo, they exist.

[SteveGrenard]

What is so difficult to understand? The archives no longer publicly exist. Some people involved may've kept private records of them. You of all people should know how this works. I cannot say what does or doesn't exist specifically.

No claims are being made for anything that appeared in those archives or which may (but I don't know) still appear in them on somebody's hardrive or floppy or whatever; no details to support claims, if claims were being made, can be released either.

Now is that clear enough for your way of thinking? BTW you do not make me panic but you can drive people nuts. LOL..................

In further answer to your simple question, I frankly do not know as information passed to investigators is a one way street and there was no follow-up or feedback to indicate the value of anything obtained. In cases where claims are made, such as the Jacqui Poole murder case we were discussing above recently, 120 pcs of information were obtained from Holohan and recorded by a police officer which were investigated and found to be veridical. So is a claim being made in the Poole murder case? Yes, I would have to say it is but not by myself. The details will be in Keen & Playfair's published paper. I do not have them.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Your behavior is a very good example why the police go over and over a testimony with a suspect: If the testimony chances, there is a very good chance that the suspect lies.

Look back on how your story has changed:

Before:
"No, these archives ceased to exist in the public space and have been recorded privately."

Now:
"Some people involved may've kept private records of them."

"No claims are being made for anything that appeared in those archives or which may (but I don't know) still appear in them on somebody's hardrive or floppy or whatever;"

Before, it was certain that the archives had been recorded privately. Now, you don't know.

Steve, I truly believe you have told a lie.

[SteveGrenard]

Regrettably I cannot tell you who kept a private record of them. I can say it was not me nor have I ever claimed it was me.

Nor can I brook any further discussion of the matter as no claims are being made and therefore no information is required by you. You have no need to know the answer(s) to any questions you ask.

The record is clear. If you wish to miscomprehend yet again and call that a lie, feel free. You are a one trick pony and this is the one. I wouldn't think of depriving you of that....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Regrettably I cannot tell you who kept a private record of them. I can say it was not me nor have I ever claimed it was me.

Nor can I brook any further discussion of the matter as no claims are being made and therefore no information is required by you. You have no need to know the answer(s) to any questions you ask.

The record is clear. If you wish to miscomprehend yet again and call that a lie, feel free. You are a one trick pony and this is the one. I wouldn't think of depriving you of that....

Steve,

The record is very clear indeed.

You changed your story, once you realized your a55 could very much be on the line. To top that, you now try to shift blame to somebody else.

I think we can conclude that these archives never had any information whatsoever. You just wanted to seem important.

What we have is yet another piece of evidence that psychics cannot help the police.

Thanks for clearing that up, Steve.

[SteveGrenard]

You are free to ignore those cases of psychic involvement which have been made public but if you do, you place in peril your conclusion which doesn't follow the entire record in the matter, not just that of the group we eexperimented with. You still have a serious problem grasping the totality of the experience and instead pick away at minutiae that, at the outset, was and remains off-limits.

Thanks for an interesting interlude to anotherwise dull Sunday post-4th of July weekend.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You are free to ignore those cases of psychic involvement which have been made public

Oh, I don't ignore them, Steve. I just can't find one single case where a psychic has solved a case.

Know of any?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
but if you do, you place in peril your conclusion which doesn't follow the entire record in the matter, not just that of the group we eexperimented with.

How on earth can I "ignore" what your "group" "experimented" on, if you won't show it to me??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You still have a serious problem grasping the totality of the experience and instead pick away at minutiae that, at the outset, was and remains off-limits.

You complain that I do not "grasp" the "totality of the experience", but refuse to reveal anything that could make it happen.

Nice going, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Thanks for an interesting interlude to anotherwise dull Sunday post-4th of July weekend.

You're welcome.

[Lucianarchy]

[


Oh, I don't ignore them, Steve. I just can't find one single case where a psychic has solved a case.

Know of any?



The police / law enforcement officials solve cases. Evidently, there are some psychics who can and do provide complementary intelligence to the detectives.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The police / law enforcement officials solve cases. Evidently, there are some psychics who can and do provide complementary intelligence to the detectives.

So, no psychic has ever solved a case.

Are you going to answer the questions, Lucianarchy?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, no psychic has ever solved a case.


Evidently, there are some psychics who can and do provide complementary intelligence to the detectives.

Are you going to answer the questions, Lucianarchy?

If they are in this thread and relate a claim I have made in it, please ask your question. If not, please see my sig.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Evidently, there are some psychics who can and do provide complementary intelligence to the detectives.

Not proven.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
If they are in this thread and relate a claim I have made in it, please ask your question. If not, please see my sig.

I'll repost the whole thread. Not a problem.

[SteveGrenard]

Claus: Oh, I don't ignore them, Steve. I just can't find one single case where a psychic has solved a case.

Know of any?


Reply: Show me where I said "solves a case." You are either moving the famous goalposts or are demonstrating once again your penchant for miscomprehension. I actually make no claims of any kind related to this.

Claus: How on earth can I "ignore" what your "group" "experimented" on, if you won't show it to me??

Reply: Again, you misattribute what I said. I said you were ignoring cases which have been made public and I even pointed to the Poole murder case in which somebody claiming to be a UK Police Detective named Stumpy posting above claims conflicting information with the facts of that case. I hope that when he writes you an article in your website magazine he is man enough to back up what he says with his own name, rank and location.

Claus: You complain that I do not "grasp" the "totality of the experience", but refuse to reveal anything that could make it happen.

Nice going, Steve.

Reply: I have to make it happen? LOL, what vast powers you must think I have. The empirical evidence can be researched quite easily through the choice use of a few key words in Google, etc as well as in the discussion of the Poole case above. Again, NO claims are being made that anything any psychic has done has SOLVED a case or contributed materially to it. In fact even in the Poole case, the police, at their peril, decided to ignore what turned out to be veridical pscyhic information a decade or more later. The psychic did nothing in this case to help the police because they ignored what she had told them. Therefore Claus, you win. I agree with you. No psychic has done anything to solve a case and no psychic has done anything to help the police.

Now can they just go back to what they were doing and not be bothered by you anymore?

[Clancie]

Posted by Lucianarchy

If the (questions) are in this thread and relate to a claim I have made in it, please ask your question. If not, please see my sig.
Posted by CFLarsen

I'll repost the whole thread. .
Lucianarchy,

Does this mean that Claus doesn't know if there are questions specifically related to this thread in his "Questions" thread or not? :confused:

Your request for questions from it that are on the topic of this thread--not the whole, unrelated list--seems extremely clear.

If Claus actually has related questions on his list, why wouldn't he just ask them in this thread as you mentioned? :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Show me where I said "solves a case." You are either moving the famous goalposts or are demonstrating once again your penchant for miscomprehension. I actually make no claims of any kind related to this.

Stop misrepresenting my posts: I didn't say you did. I merely asked you if you knew of any psychic who has solved a case.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Again, you misattribute what I said. I said you were ignoring cases which have been made public and I even pointed to the Poole murder case im which somebody claiming to be a UK Police Detective named Stumpy claims conflicting information with the facts of that case.

No, I did not "misattribute" what you said. Read it again.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I have to make it happen? LOL, what vast powers you must think I have. The empirical evidence can be researched quite easily through the choice use of a few key words in Google, etc as well as in the discussion of the Poole case above. Again, NO claims are being made that anything any psychic has done has SOLVED a case or contributed materially to it. In fact even in the Poole case, the police, at their peril, decided to ignore what turned out to be veridical pscyhic information a decade or more later. The psychic did nothing in this case to help the police because they ignored what she had told them. Therefore Claus, you win. I agree with you. No psychic has done anything to solve a case and no psychic has done anything to help the police.

Thank you.

You refer to Google, which is the same as to say that you cannot back up your claims that there is "empirical evidence".

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Now can they just go back to what they were doing and not be bothered by you anymore?

Since you have just admitted that no psychic has ever helped the police, you also admit that they are wasting valuable police time. Somehow, I'm not surprised that you don't find that questionable.

I don't understand this urge of yours to obstruct justice, Steve. But I suppose you have your reasons.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
If Claus actually has related questions on his list, why wouldn't he just ask them in this thread as you mentioned? :confused:

Lucianarchy does not answer questions, period. No matter the circumstances, no questions will be answered.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is rarely a good way of choosing allies, Clancie. I'm sure you'll see, but then it will probably be too late.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Clancie

.
Lucianarchy,

Does this mean that Claus doesn't know if there are questions specifically related to this thread in his "Questions" thread or not? :confused:


:con2:


Your request for questions from it that are on the topic of this thread--not the whole, unrelated list--seems extremely clear.

Thank you. It is necessary, I feel, in order to maintain some order within the forum.

If Claus actually has related questions on his list, why wouldn't he just ask them in this thread as you mentioned? :confused: :

:con2: :con2: :con2:

[SteveGrenard]

Do you call it obstruction of justice when a Senior Investigating Officer decides to ignore psychic testimony and let a rapist and murderer walk free? a person who, if they did it once, could have done it again, and yet again, before being convicted on a lesser un-related charge?

This is precisely the scenario in the Jacqui Poole murder case and the free walk SIO Lundy gave to Pokie Ruark. Sorry but the cops will never live this one down. Because of these implications I am not surprised that coppers like the anon. Stumpy come to their defense in such a type of case.

Here was a case with 120 verified pieces of information pointing at the perp by a psychic who, according to you and them, was wasting their time. Pretty sad. Who's obstructing justice here?
I have seen the argument that psychic informants waste the time and resources of the police. I have also seen the police ask for any and all the help they can get. This is a two way street but since the police, not the skeptics, are asking for the help, the skeptics and especially you, have no say so in how the police obtain their information.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is rarely a good way of choosing allies, Clancie. I'm sure you'll see, but then it will probably be too late.
Actually, Claus, I don't consider you "an enemy". Nor is Lucianarchy "a friend". I don't even know him and am not familiar with most of his posts.

However, Lucianarchy made a very clear offer to answer your specific questions about this topic and your response made no sense. That's all.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Do you call it obstruction of justice when a Senior Investigating Officer decides to ignore psychic testimony and let a rapist and murderer walk free? a person who, if they did it once, could have done it again, and yet again, before being convicted on a lesser un-related charge?

Sorry, Steve, people are not convicted because of what a psychic says.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is precisely the scenario in the Jacqui Poole murder case and the free walk SIO Lundy gave to Pokie Ruark. Sorry but the cops will never live this one down. Because of these implications I am not surprised that coppers like the anon. Stumpy come to their defense in such a type of case.

I have saved this for posterity. The sheer obtuseness of your statement must be recorded.

You are one mean s**t, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Here was a case with 120 verified pieces of information pointing at the perp by a psychic who, according to you and them, was wasting their time. Pretty sad. Who's obstructing justic here?

The psychics. Not one of the 600 psychics who approached the police during the Elizabeth Smart disappearance got it right. Not one.

Not one single case of a psychic solving a case, Steve. Not one.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, Claus, I don't consider you "an enemy". Nor is Lucianarchy "a friend". I don't even know him and am not familiar with most of his posts.

I can tell.

Originally posted by Clancie
However, Lucianarchy made a very clear offer to answer your specific questions about this topic and your response made no sense. That's all.

Lucianarchy insisted on conditions that she knew cannot be met: The threads are not in the database anymore.

How honest is that?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not proven.



Evidently, you are wrong. It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that there are some psychics who can and do provide complementary intelligence to the detectives. The doubt element has been tested right here in this forum and when tested, those doubts were demonsrated to be either misinformed or misleading. The most likely explanation is that some psychics are doing what they say they can do and that known science simply does not yet understand the medium through which their information comes.

[SteveGrenard]

Claus: Sorry, Steve, people are not convicted because of what a psychic says.

Reply: You never answer questions. Show me where I said someone should be or is convicted of what a psychic says? Psychic testimony is an investigative tool. If, as Stumpy and the story handed to the BBC by police sources is true, why didn't the police find out that the man the psychic implicated, a man named Pokie (not a common name) who was described by appearance and his car also, was her "lover."? The fact is because this was evidence given by a witness who claimed to get it psychially it was ignored, not investigated and only minimally followed through. Lundy, to Stumpy's chagrin, even interviewed Ruark and then gave him a walk. Could it be because they didn't do their homework or didn't want to acknolwedge the psychic and hope her evidence would go away? Well it didn't. Up to when ther DNA evidence was produced was Lundy saying whenever he could see, Pokie Ruark was the not the perp even though the psychic said he was. We was right says the police. Then the DNA comes along and proves them wrong. hat this proves is to listen to all and sundry and have patience. You never know when something will come back and kick you in the butt as it did in this case. This is one reason why smart cops dont want anyone to know hey investigate psychic evidence.


Claus: I have saved this for posterity. The sheer obtuseness of your statement must be recorded. You are one mean s***, Steve.


reply: Do that because after the study of the case is published, the repercussions and innuendo and name calling is apt to heighten considerably. I am just a side-liner and will be interested watching. Why do I think it has begun already?



Claus: The psychics. Not one of the 600 psychics who approached the police during the Elizabeth Smart disappearance got it right. Not one.

Reply: Why are you changing the subject and the case? I pointed to 120 pieces of information provided by Holohan in the Poole case which were found to be accurate. What in heaven's name does another case, half away around the world, have to do with this one?

But since you opened it up.....................

In any case following the public disclosure and trial of the perps in the Smart case, I am sure there will be an assesment of what psychics reported. Until then we have no knowledge of any investigative value they may've had. The Poole case is 15 years old and all is known now and it will be another year or more before that case will be published. This is called being thorough and objective which you are not. You want it now so you call into doubt information you actually have no knowledge of. Save for the problem in knowing whether Smart was alive or not, the
psychics called in by the family successfully on more than one occasion when they worked on the case pointed to her geographic location within meters., dead or alive. In fact those areas were searched and Elizabeth confirms she could hear searchers talking as they trampled by and she was kept hidden by her captors.

Her final location and where she was found was also sucessfully pinpointed by locations within a small geographic area.

Claus: Not one single case of a psychic solving a case, Steve. Not
one.

Reply: You use the word "solving" again. I never said any psychic has solved a case. No one is arguing with you regarding this so do you feel by repeating the statement it will garner some additional meaning or do you just enjoy being redundent?

So will Stumpy agree to use his real name and location in order to stand behind his assertions? Especially if they are published in your website?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You never answer questions.

"Never"?? That's a good one, Steve. :D

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Show me where I said someone should be or is convicted of what a psychic says? Psychic testimony is an investigative tool.

I haven't claimed you did, Steve.

When a psychic claims to have solved a crime, he/she is lying?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If, as Stumpy and the story handed to the BBC by police sources is true, why didn't the police find out that the man the psychic implicated, a man named Pokie (not a common name)

How do you know that?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
who was described by appearance and his car also, was her "lover."? The fact is because this was evidence given by a witness who claimed to get it psychially it was ignored, not investigated and only minimally followed through. Lundy, to Stumpy's chagrin, even interviewed Ruark and then gave him a walk. Could it be because they didn't do their homework or didn't want to acknolwedge the psychic and hope her evidence would go away? Well it didn't.

You are saying that the police should listen to psychics? All of them? If not all, which ones?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Up to when ther DNA evidence was produced was Lundy saying whenever he could see, Pokie Ruark was the not the perp even though the psychic said he was. We was right says the police. Then the DNA comes along and proves them wrong. hat this proves is to listen to all and sundry and have patience. You never know when something will come back and kick you in the butt as it did in this case. This is one reason why smart cops dont want anyone to know hey investigate psychic evidence.

The police is not infallible. However, this case is no better than any other: Where's the evidence, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Claus: I have saved this for posterity. The sheer obtuseness of your statement must be recorded. You are one mean s***, Steve.

You can write it, Steve: You are one mean s**t.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
reply: Do that because after the study of the case is published, the repercussions and innuendo and name calling is apt to heighten considerably. I am just a side-liner and will be interested watching. Why do I think it has begun already?

Oh, I cannot wait for all those "coming-soon" publications you have promised for more than a year now, Steve!! They never seem to emerge, though....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Why are you changing the subject and the case? I pointed to 120 pieces of information provided by Holohan in the Poole case which were found to be accurate. What in heaven's name does another case, half away around the world, have to do with this one?

Fine, ignore the fact that no psychic has solved a case.

Have you looked at this case skeptically, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
But since you opened it up.....................

In any case following the public disclosure and trial of the perps in the Smart case, I am sure there will be an assesment of what psychics reported. Until then we have no knowledge of any investigative value they may've had.

Exactly. If it turns out to be nothing, will you acknowledge that this is weighing against psychics being helpful?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The Poole case is 15 years old and all is known now and it will be another year or more before that case will be published.

"Coming soon, coming soon..."

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is called being thorough and objective which you are not.

Steve, you are a sloppy, careless researcher, and are also an habitual liar.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You want it now so you call into doubt information you actually have no knowledge of. Save for the problem in knowing whether Smart was alive or not

"Problem"?? Don't you find that a bit more serious than just a "problem"??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
, the psychics called in by the family successfully on more than one occasion when they worked on the case pointed to her geographic location within meters., dead or alive.

Please show your evidence of this.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In fact those areas were searched and Elizabeth confirms she could hear searchers talking as they trampled by and she was kept hidden by her captors.

A lot of areas were searched, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Her final location and where she was found was also sucessfully pinpointed by locations within a small geographic area.

By who?? How "small"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You use the word "solving" again. I never said any psychic has solved a case. No one is arguing with you regarding this so do you feel by repeating the statement it will garner some additional meaning or do you just enjoy being redundent?

No, actually, I'm kinda sad that all these psychics are wasting police time with their false claims.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So will Stumpy agree to use his real name and location in order to stand behind his assertions? Especially if they are published in your website?

As long as I know it, it's fine. Since when are you so concerned about anonymity - you, who initiated an anonymous smear campaign against JREF?

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: I haven't claimed you did, Steve. When a psychic claims to have solved a crime, is he/she is lying?

Reply: How would I know?


Larsn: How do you know that?

Reply: Because of the analysis provided by M. Keen with a modicum of logic and good sense thrown in. I raised this before.
If a girl is murdered, raped and robbed (not necessarily in that order), they look at lovers first and foremost. How could the police , even 15 years ago, fail to turn up Pokie as her lover and then suddenly when the DNA evidence shows up, this is now offered into the record as some sort of natural reason Pokie's DNA (e.g. semen) showed up on her. What a joke. I am still waiting for Stumpy's response on this one. There were 46 poins of DNA contact evidence., not just semen.


Larsen: You are saying that the police should listen to psychics? All of them? If not all, which ones?


Reply: I am saying that if they listened to this one and followed up with a proper investigation and yes, I know hindsight is always 20-20, they would've nabbed Ruark a lot quicker. In fact he was already in jail for something else when they got him on this. I agree they have an awsomely difficult responsibilkity and if they acted in this case they may've stopped a rapist and killer a lot sooner than they did. As it turned out it was genetic science that did this for them. Lundy did nothing. Batters couldnt, other than save a piece of evidence (sweater) that also provided a source of DNA matchup.


Larsen: The police are not infallible. However, this case is no better than any other: Where's the evidence, Steve?

Reply: In case you were out to lunch, I consulted M Keen on this and he provided a description of the evidence he and his co-author, G Playfair, have examined and referenced. Also see the Police Federation Magazine article. Do you think I can post Batters' notebook notes here?


Larsen: Oh, I cannot wait for all those "coming-soon" publications you have promised for more than a year now, Steve!! They never seem to emerge, though....

Reply: That continues to be your problem. You are a one trick pony looking to take the high ground and get out quick. As I indicated the investigators are thorough and methodical and we can rely on them. The peer review process their paper is undergoing is stringent, especially in a case that is apt to blow up in a lot of people's faces.

Stumpy ..........be careful here and make sure you do some homework on this, not just rely on BBC reports. Of course you have nothing to worry about because nobody is going to know who you are. You're safe no matter which way it goes.


Larsen: Fine, ignore the fact that no psychic has solved a case.
Have you looked at this case skeptically, Steve?

Reply: Are you saying now that psychics have solved cases? What is your evidence for this? Or for them saying they have solved cases or are you stretching, converting statements that they provided veridical information into claims of solving cases?
With the exception of Noreen Renier, I don't know any psychic who says with certainty "I have solved" such an such a case. This doesn' mean such claims don't exist. I don't accept them and frankly don't know of any.


Larsen: Exactly. If it turns out to be nothing, will you acknowledge that this is weighing against psychics being helpful?

Reply: You are apt to have to wait a year, maybe two on this as well as everything is very quiet on this and if the perps cop a psycho plea (afterall they had messianic complexes), we may or may not ever know. I am not sure how this pans out in Utah.


Larsen: "Coming soon, coming soon..."


Reply: Whether you knew it or not you waited 15 years to reach this point on Poole's murder. I know you are very impatient but you just will have wait a little longer.


Larsen: Steve, you are a sloppy, careless researcher, and are also an habitual liar.

Replies: These are personal ad hom attacks ....and you are nothing more than a yellow bellied coward, sitting in some coffee shop in Denmark making such assertions. Does this make you feel good?

You have no credibility and this has been demonstrated over and over again. Why do you waste your money on computer time to do this?

You are lying about lying also since I am not researching this subject, make no claims and therefore cannot be sloppy, careless or liying about anything related to it. You fail to appreciate the obvious.


Larsen: "Problem"?? Don't you find that a bit more serious than just a "problem"??

Reply: We have been down this road. Observation of mediums including JE indicates that they do not always know if a subject mentioned or placed in time and space is alive or dead. I feel this is an area that needs to be looked at. It is a problem. If the victim is deceased, then recovery of the remains and apprehension of the perp is the priority. If the victim is alive, the recovery of the victim and apprehension of the perp is also the priority. Happily in the Smart case it was the latter. Since both scenarios have the same consequential actions appended to them, it is a problem but only a minor one for the authorities.

As you may not know kidnapping is a Federal crime in the U.S. and carries the death penalty whether the victim is alive or dead. I come from an appreciation of the Lindbergh Law in my view on this. So after Utah is finished with them the Feds may decide to step in.


Larsen: Please show your evidence of this.

Reply: See analysis of the locations Smart was at and on what days and compare it to the record provided by Psi Tech as to her location. PsiTech, quite rightfully, is waiting complete disclosure of the known facts before making any claims other than the claims they had already made., even fallacious ones such as concerning whether she was alive or not.

Larsen: A lot of areas were searched, Steve.

Reply: But not in the time frame the case was being worked by psychics where they accurately, in known time, placed her at such
locations.



Larsen: By who?? How "small"?

Reply: Not down to a single block or a few square meters but a larger area to the SE of SLC which is where the town she was finally found in was. I have no idea how detailsof the final numbers will be and again, this awaits formal disclosure.


Larsen: No, actually, I'm kinda sad that all these psychics are wasting police time with their false claims.

Reply: You used the word "solving." Does this now make you a habitual liar Claus? Are you retracting your claim of psychics claiming they have solved cases?



Larsen: As long as I know it, it's fine. Since when are you so concerned about anonymity - you, who initiated an anonymous smear campaign against JREF?

Reply: If Stumpy is appealing to authority, his own, and your readers have to do likewise I wonder how many of them will be more than mildly amused that they are appealing to a UK police officer whose only name of record is, well, er Stumpy. Every serious journalist and researcher uses their real name. Just because the editor knows the real name of a writer who prefers to remain anon. is not sufficient to produce the authority being considered.

I have always used my real name on my e-mail and have never had phoney e-mail accounts and pseudonyms like crowunit, arcticpigeon, jj or cantata at yahooooo. et etc ad infin. I have no problem with such stupid phoney names on forums but if you are going to publish a serious article on a serious subject, somehow it doesn't work to retain one's psudonym and do so, cowardly, from a cloak of anonymity. Its time to put up or shut up.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: How would I know?

But, according to you, no psychic has ever solved a crime.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Because of the analysis provided by M. Keen with a modicum of logic and good sense thrown in. I raised this before.

How many "Pokies" are there in the area then?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If a girl is murdered, raped and robbed (not necessarily in that order)

You just had to say that, didn't you? You got a dirty mind, Steve...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
, they look at lovers first and foremost. How could the police , even 15 years ago, fail to turn up Pokie as her lover

Lots of lovers keep their relationships secret. Never had a secret lover, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
and then suddenly when the DNA evidence shows up, this is now offered into the record as some sort of natural reason Pokie's DNA (e.g. semen) showed up on her. What a joke. I am still waiting for Stumpy's response on this one. There were 46 poins of DNA contact evidence., not just semen.

Whoa, Steve: Now you are being disingeneous. DNA testing is fairly recent in criminal investigation. This murder took place in 1983 (not 15 years ago). In 1983, DNA testing was something the police dreamed of.

"By the year 2000, recent advances in DNA technology had been able to match clues found on her body with the accused."
Source: http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2001/12_2001_ghost.htm

Do try to get your facts straight, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I am saying that if they listened to this one and followed up with a proper investigation and yes, I know hindsight is always 20-20, they would've nabbed Ruark a lot quicker.

Yes, hindsight is 20-20, Steve. Which is why your distasteful accusations are out of bounds.

How do we distinguish between the good and the bad psychics? If you cannot say this, then your criticism is invalid.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In fact he was already in jail for something else when they got him on this.

What's that got to do with anything??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I agree they have an awsomely difficult responsibilkity and if they acted in this case they may've stopped a rapist and killer a lot sooner than they did. As it turned out it was genetic science that did this for them. Lundy did nothing. Batters couldnt, other than save a piece of evidence (sweater) that also provided a source of DNA matchup.

I fail to see how the police could have acted differently. If you feel an injustice has been done, complain.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: In case you were out to lunch, I consulted M Keen on this and he provided a description of the evidence he and his co-author, G Playfair, have examined and referenced. Also see the Police Federation Magazine article. Do you think I can post Batters' notebook notes here?

Why not?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: That continues to be your problem. You are a one trick pony looking to take the high ground and get out quick. As I indicated the investigators are thorough and methodical and we can rely on them. The peer review process their paper is undergoing is stringent, especially in a case that is apt to blow up in a lot of people's faces.

Yeah, but where are those "coming-soon" publications? They never seem to emerge...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Stumpy ..........be careful here and make sure you do some homework on this, not just rely on BBC reports. Of course you have nothing to worry about because nobody is going to know who you are. You're safe no matter which way it goes.

Steve, what "homework" have you been doing?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Are you saying now that psychics have solved cases? What is your evidence for this? Or for them saying they have solved cases or are you stretching, converting statements that they provided veridical information into claims of solving cases?

What on earth made you think that, from what I wrote??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
With the exception of Noreen Renier, I don't know any psychic who says with certainty "I have solved" such an such a case. This doesn' mean such claims don't exist. I don't accept them and frankly don't know of any.

OK, then: You think Noreen Renier is lying then.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You are apt to have to wait a year, maybe two on this as well as everything is very quiet on this and if the perps cop a psycho plea (afterall they had messianic complexes), we may or may not ever know. I am not sure how this pans out in Utah.

Answer the question, please: If it turns out to be nothing, will you acknowledge that this is weighing against psychics being helpful?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Whether you knew it or not you waited 15 years to reach this point on Poole's murder. I know you are very impatient but you just will have wait a little longer.

Yeah, but why does it seem to be forever?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Replies: These are personal ad hom attacks ....and you are nothing more than a yellow bellied coward, sitting in some coffee shop in Denmark making such assertions. Does this make you feel good?

No, it makes me feel sad, Steve, that an otherwise intelligent chap like you can be so deluded, dishonest and mean. And I honestly don't think you can point your fingers at anyone regarding ad hominem attacks...

BTW, I don't sit in a "coffee shop". I'm in my office.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You have no credibility and this has been demonstrated over and over again. Why do you waste your money on computer time to do this?

I have no credibility? Steve, you have zilch.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You are lying about lying also since I am not researching this subject, make no claims and therefore cannot be sloppy, careless or liying about anything related to it. You fail to appreciate the obvious.

I wasn't talking about this subject. You know what I was talking about.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: We have been down this road. Observation of mediums including JE indicates that they do not always know if a subject mentioned or placed in time and space is alive or dead. I feel this is an area that needs to be looked at. It is a problem. If the victim is deceased, then recovery of the remains and apprehension of the perp is the priority. If the victim is alive, the recovery of the victim and apprehension of the perp is also the priority. Happily in the Smart case it was the latter. Since both scenarios have the same consequential actions appended to them, it is a problem but only a minor one for the authorities.

After all this time, no evidence whatsoever....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
As you may not know kidnapping is a Federal crime in the U.S. and carries the death penalty whether the victim is alive or dead. I come from an appreciation of the Lindbergh Law in my view on this. So after Utah is finished with them the Feds may decide to step in.

So?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: See analysis of the locations Smart was at and on what days and compare it to the record provided by Psi Tech as to her location. PsiTech, quite rightfully, is waiting complete disclosure of the known facts before making any claims other than the claims they had already made., even fallacious ones such as concerning whether she was alive or not.

Steve, I really think you should read this article: PSI-TECH: Not So Smart (http://http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/psitechsmart.htm)

That you can even defend PSITECH is amazing evidence of your complete delusion.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: But not in the time frame the case was being worked by psychics where they accurately, in known time, placed her at such locations.

How many places were searched, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Not down to a single block or a few square meters but a larger area to the SE of SLC which is where the town she was finally found in was. I have no idea how detailsof the final numbers will be and again, this awaits formal disclosure.

Ah, of course. A "larger" area is not "meters", as you earlier claimed.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You used the word "solving." Does this now make you a habitual liar Claus? Are you retracting your claim of psychics claiming they have solved cases?

I have never claimed that. If I have, it's certainly a typo!!

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: If Stumpy is appealing to authority, his own, and your readers have to do likewise I wonder how many of them will be more than mildly amused that they are appealing to a UK police officer whose only name of record is, well, er Stumpy. Every serious journalist and researcher uses their real name. Just because the editor knows the real name of a writer who prefers to remain anon. is not sufficient to produce the authority being considered.

I think Stumpy has given plenty of evidence of his knowledge about police work.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have always used my real name on my e-mail and have never had phoney e-mail accounts and pseudonyms like crowunit, arcticpigeon, jj or cantata at yahooooo. et etc ad infin.

Liar.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have no problem with such stupid phoney names on forums but if you are going to publish a serious article on a serious subject, somehow it doesn't work to retain one's psudonym and do so, cowardly, from a cloak of anonymity. Its time to put up or shut up.

Then why do you avoid the subject of evidence, time and time again?

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: But, according to you, no psychic has ever solved a crime.


Reply" Where did I say this? I said I don't know. The true skeptic is never certain and has an open mind.


Larsen: How many "Pokies" are there in the area then?

Reply: Yes, how many who fit the psychics description, drive a car described by the psychic exactly like Pokie Ruarks. I would venture
the answer to your question is ONE. The cops had him and let him walk.


Larsen: You just had to say that, didn't you? You got a dirty mind, Steve...


Reply: Its a matter of record she was murdered. It is a matter of record that a stash of gold jewelery she was collecting was robbed and its a matter of record that Pokie Ruark's semen appeared on her. Stumpy ignores the other 45 points of DNA evidence and concentrated on this one. He believes this makes her and Pokie lovers. I guess he has never heard of rape. He brought it up first. What a lame thesis for anybody, let alone a cop or the BBC to swallow. BTW Pokie is in jail, why not pop over on visitor's day and straight out ask him now that he's convicted for life.

Larsen: Lots of lovers keep their relationships secret. Never had a secret lover, Steve?

Reply: Have you? If the police investigated they would've turned him up at the time of the event. Neighbors would have seen him coming and going. Shoppkeepers would've seen them talking together.

Larsen: Whoa, Steve: Now you are being disingeneous. DNA testing is fairly recent in criminal investigation. This murder took place in 1983 (not 15 years ago). In 1983, DNA testing was something the police dreamed of.

Reply: I don't think so. It was 15 years after the murder at which time he was identified as the murderer (1998) , charged and subsequently convicted, e.g. 2000.


Larsen: Do try to get your facts straight, Steve.

Reply: You do likewise. You are evidently not familiar with the entire timeline. DNA as a evidentiary tool was available in 1998 as well.


Larsen: Yes, hindsight is 20-20, Steve. Which is why your distasteful accusations are out of bounds.

Reply: People learn from their mistakes, however distatsteful that may be.

Larsen: How do we distinguish between the good and the bad psychics? If you cannot say this, then your criticism is invalid.

Reply: If the entire argument rests on this distinction, you are fuzzier than I thought.


Larsen: What's that got to do with anything??

Reply: Ruark was a habitual criminal. Had he been convicted for life earlier he would've been off the streets and crimes he comitted would not have happened. Fifteen, even 18 years is a long time with a lot of crimes he comitted.


Larsen: I fail to see how the police could have acted differently. If you feel an injustice has been done, complain.

Reply: They should have established the Pokie/Jacqui Poole relationship at the time, not a decade and a half or more later.
This underscores the improbability of that so-called relationship,
has did the fact he was engaged to someone else, targeted Pool to rob her so he could get money to buy his fiancee a wedding and a wedding and engagement ring. This how the simple mind of a professional low-life and thief works. He gained entrance into her flat for this purpose, ending up killing her and raping her as well.


quote:

Reply: Why not?

Reply: Keen and Playfair have had access to copies, I do not.




Larsen: Yeah, but where are those "coming-soon" publications? They never seem to emerge...

Reply: Hence my original advice to wait before making any critical comment on them.





Larsen: Steve, what "homework" have you been doing?

Reply: I have discussed this with Keen who has interviewed the principal detective in he case, Batters and his associate Det Smith.




Larsen: What on earth made you think that, from what I wrote??

Reply: That's what it sounds like you wrote. Go back and re-read.
See how easy it to misinterpret and miscomprehend? A trait you are especially posessed of.




Larsen: OK, then: You think Noreen Renier is lying then.

Reply: A true skeptic is never certain. You are not a true skeptic or you would not be so quick to accuse all and sundry of lying. It is a tiresome trait of yours that seems to be getting worse when people try and alert you to it.


Larsen: Answer the question, please: If it turns out to be nothing, will you acknowledge that this is weighing against psychics being helpful?

Reply: Regarding the Smart case, if and when all the data is in and assed, I will go where the data indicates. So yes, if it mitigates against psychic accuracy in any aspect of the investigation of I would acknowledge it.



Latsen: Yeah, but why does it seem to be forever?

Reply: You sound like my son when he was about 7. When, when, when.........the lament of kids everywhere's




Larsen: No, it makes me feel sad, Steve, that an otherwise intelligent chap like you can be so deluded, dishonest and mean. And I honestly don't think you can point your fingers at anyone regarding ad hominem attacks...

Reply: I point the finger at you for this. You demonstrate ad hominem tactics repeatedly. It is a refuge you extoll in using.








Larsen: I wasn't talking about this subject. You know what I was talking about.

Reply: What experiment would that be? The one I had nothing to do with except recruit 10 controls for generalization and then have one of them spill the details before it was over. It was my fault for not advising this person. Mea culpa.




Larsen: So?

Reply: ? Makes a big difference to the perps.


Larsen: Steve, I really think you should read this article: PSI-TECH: Not So Smart

That you can even defend PSITECH is amazing evidence of your complete delusion.

Reply: I am not in a position to defend psitech nor do I want to. If you mao outwhere she was found and compare it with ntheir reports, you will see what I mean.



Larsen: How many places were searched, Steve?

Reply: You ignore timeframes. Okay.



Larsen: Ah, of course. A "larger" area is not "meters", as you earlier claimed.

Reply: At a particular time she was being sought psychially and location informatuion given, and the area searched, she was within meters and earshot of the searchers. Thats meters. Where she was eventually found is also within a psychially defined or circumscribed area but it is a larger area -- a whole town down the road from SLC, a SE suburb actually.




Larsen: I have never claimed that. If I have, it's certainly a typo!!

Reply: Fine.


Larsen: I think Stumpy has given plenty of evidence of his knowledge about police work.

Reply: Evidence of police work is not evidence of knowledge concerning this case. Stumpy's knowledge is based on two almost identical SHORT news accounts on the BBC website. These
are "links" he claims refute the psychic involvement or makes a tenuous attempt to have them do so. The other source is the Police Fed article by Batters which he must refute.

The psychic was a non-involvement in any case since the police IGNORED her evidence.

And Ruark was convicted on DNA evidence, not police work.
Anything I have heard from Stumpy I could've learned from Inspector Morse. I anxiously awaiting the national guidelines on police response to this kind of information. He said he would find it for us.



Larsen: Liar.

Reply: LOL...... now.whos the liar Claus?


Larsen: Then why do you avoid the subject of evidence, time and time again?

Reply: I am not making claims, do not have to provide evidence and I am free to quote those who are. I cannot avoid the subject of evidence I don't have because I am not investigating the subject.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Maybe some would seek fame for personal gain.
Everyone exhibits some level of self-interest. If one does a job, and does it well, there is every reason in the world not to hide that fact so that others may benefit from their talents (altruistic impulse) and so that they themselves get the rewards for being successful (selfish impulse).

Perhaps more importantly is the simple fact that this is exactly what many have done. I wouldn't know anything about psychics helping police if it weren't for psychics making public claims about it. The observed fact is: many psychics take public credit for helping police.

Why would a good, accurate, psychic 'supergrass' want to make themselves a known target? :confused: Don't you think that a successful, known, police psychic could be a target for someone who didn't want to be detected by a psychic :confused:

Don't you think this applies to every police officer, prosecutor, judge, juror, and witness? In places where the rule of law is weak, all of these people are indeed targeted. In the US and UK, I think this is a stretch. Also, I don't think that special protection from identification would be granted without a specific, known threat, as opposed to just generally being afraid of being targeted.

Your post was in response to my issues regarding court transcripts and psychics. Can I take this to mean that you feel there are no mentions of psychic info in court transcripts because, in most or all cases where psychics provided information, they were granted special witness protection? If so, what of psychics who have publicly claimed to help police in transcripted court cases? If not, why do you think there are no court transcripts where psychic evidence in challenged?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Yes, how many who fit the psychics description, drive a car described by the psychic exactly like Pokie Ruarks. I would venture
the answer to your question is ONE. The cops had him and let him walk.

Answer the question: How many "Pokies" are there in the area then?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Its a matter of record she was murdered. It is a matter of record that a stash of gold jewelery she was collecting was robbed and its a matter of record that Pokie Ruark's semen appeared on her. Stumpy ignores the other 45 points of DNA evidence and concentrated on this one. He believes this makes her and Pokie lovers. I guess he has never heard of rape. He brought it up first. What a lame thesis for anybody, let alone a cop or the BBC to swallow. BTW Pokie is in jail, why not pop over on visitor's day and straight out ask him now that he's convicted for life.

That's nice, Steve. Why did you have to fantasize about her being "murdered, raped and robbed (not necessarily in that order)"? What could that possibly have anything to do with this?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Have you? If the police investigated they would've turned him up at the time of the event. Neighbors would have seen him coming and going. Shoppkeepers would've seen them talking together.

Why? Are you saying that there is always witnesses to a crime?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I don't think so. It was 15 years after the murder at which time he was identified as the murderer (1998) , charged and subsequently convicted, e.g. 2000.

What are you saying? That the police used DNA testing in 1983?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You do likewise. You are evidently not familiar with the entire timeline. DNA as a evidentiary tool was available in 1998 as well.

They used DNA testing on this case in 2000. Get your facts straight.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: People learn from their mistakes, however distatsteful that may be.

Learn what? Since we cannot tell which psychics are genuine, how could the police know it?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: If the entire argument rests on this distinction, you are fuzzier than I thought.

Actually, it is very much on the spot: Not one out of 600 psychics could find Elizabeth Smart. No psychic has ever found anyone, Steve. The police complain that the psychics waste their time.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Ruark was a habitual criminal. Had he been convicted for life earlier he would've been off the streets and crimes he comitted would not have happened. Fifteen, even 18 years is a long time with a lot of crimes he comitted.

That's post-hoc reasoning, Steve. Far from what a true skeptic would engage in.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: They should have established the Pokie/Jacqui Poole relationship at the time, not a decade and a half or more later. This underscores the improbability of that so-called relationship,
has did the fact he was engaged to someone else, targeted Pool to rob her so he could get money to buy his fiancee a wedding and a wedding and engagement ring. This how the simple mind of a professional low-life and thief works. He gained entrance into her flat for this purpose, ending up killing her and raping her as well.

Complain, Steve. Don't just sit on your ass.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Keen and Playfair have had access to copies, I do not.

As usual, you back down when it comes to evidence.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Hence my original advice to wait before making any critical comment on them.

You have, on the other hand, not spared your critical comments of the police.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I have discussed this with Keen who has interviewed the principal detective in he case, Batters and his associate Det Smith.

"Discussed"? How close do you work together with Keen?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: That's what it sounds like you wrote. Go back and re-read.
See how easy it to misinterpret and miscomprehend? A trait you are especially posessed of.

I did go back. I found nothing. Please point it out. You are very wrong, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: A true skeptic is never certain. You are not a true skeptic or you would not be so quick to accuse all and sundry of lying. It is a tiresome trait of yours that seems to be getting worse when people try and alert you to it.

According to your own posts, Renier must be lying.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Regarding the Smart case, if and when all the data is in and assed, I will go where the data indicates. So yes, if it mitigates against psychic accuracy in any aspect of the investigation of I would acknowledge it.

Good! Then, what do you think of the fact that no psychic has ever found a missing person? Does that speak in favor of psychics being helpful...or against it?

Simple question, Steve. Let's see if you can answer it in the same manner.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You sound like my son when he was about 7. When, when, when.........the lament of kids everywhere's

Steve, after hundreds of years of "research", we have no evidence whatsoever of any paranormal phenomenon! It is a fair question to ask.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I point the finger at you for this. You demonstrate ad hominem tactics repeatedly. It is a refuge you extoll in using.

And "you are nothing more than a yellow bellied coward, sitting in some coffee shop in Denmark" is not ad hominem?

Point your finger, Steve. Threaten me with a(nother) lawsuit.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: What experiment would that be? The one I had nothing to do with except recruit 10 controls for generalization and then have one of them spill the details before it was over. It was my fault for not advising this person. Mea culpa.

The Poole case. Remember that?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: ? Makes a big difference to the perps.

It is also very convenient for you. It drags out the time before you have to deliver some evidence.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I am not in a position to defend psitech nor do I want to. If you mao outwhere she was found and compare it with ntheir reports, you will see what I mean.

I've been through the reports (those that are left!). Nowhere did they say anything about where she really was.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You ignore timeframes. Okay.

Answer the question: How many places were searched, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: At a particular time she was being sought psychially and location informatuion given, and the area searched, she was within meters and earshot of the searchers. Thats meters. Where she was eventually found is also within a psychially defined or circumscribed area but it is a larger area -- a whole town down the road from SLC, a SE suburb actually.

Again, you are caught in a lie:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
the psychics called in by the family successfully on more than one occasion when they worked on the case pointed to her geographic location within meters., dead or alive.

"pointed to her geographic location within meters".

However, you had this to say, later:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Not down to a single block or a few square meters but a larger area to the SE of SLC which is where the town she was finally found in was.

Oops.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Fine.

That's it? You admit that you were wrong?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Evidence of police work is not evidence of knowledge concerning this case. Stumpy's knowledge is based on two almost identical SHORT news accounts on the BBC website. These
are "links" he claims refute the psychic involvement or makes a tenuous attempt to have them do so. The other source is the Police Fed article by Batters which he must refute.

Why is that article more reliable than the BBC?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The psychic was a non-involvement in any case since the police IGNORED her evidence.

It's not evidence, Steve. If it were, you could convict someone. You have made it clear that psychics do not provide evidence.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And Ruark was convicted on DNA evidence, not police work.

Forensic work is not police work??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Anything I have heard from Stumpy I could've learned from Inspector Morse. I anxiously awaiting the national guidelines on police response to this kind of information. He said he would find it for us.

Just dismiss anything that doesn't fit your agenda.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: LOL...... now.whos the liar Claus?

You.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I am not making claims, do not have to provide evidence and I am free to quote those who are. I cannot avoid the subject of evidence I don't have because I am not investigating the subject.

It's not just here, Steve. You continually avoid any real evidence.

[SteveGrenard]

Answer the question: How many "Pokies" are there in the area then?

Reply: Asked and answered. One who fits the description of Pokie Ruark and who drives his car and was an acquaintance of the deceased. ANd one whose DNA was subsequently found on the victim. And one who is and now who was a low level thief. ONE. Just one.


Larsen: That's nice, Steve. Why did you have to fantasize about her being "murdered, raped and robbed (not necessarily in that order)"? What could that possibly have anything to do with this?

Reply: Your interpretations are truly bizaare and belie your own penchant for fantasizing. I never said anything about fantasizing. She was raped, robbed and murdered. I do not know in which order. Keep blabbing and you will reveal yourself.


Reply: Why? Are you saying that there is always witnesses to a crime?

Reply: Show me where I said that? I said neighbors and locals, e.g. shoppkeepers should've seen Pokie Ruark coming and going from Jacqui's flat or talking together in the area. This would indicate a relationship between Ruark and the deceased. The crime took place behind the closed doors of her flat and I did not say any of these people are witnesses. You are truly dense sometimes. I can hardly believe you leap to such conclusions based on the statements of others. It also may prove you have not bothered to study the case before engaging in discussion about it but this is standard procedure for you anyway.


Larsen: What are you saying? That the police used DNA testing in 1983?

Reply: More miscomprehension. Follow the time lines. 15 years after 1983 was 1998. DNA was available in 1998 and beyond.
It took several years to reopen the case, test the DNA evidence the cops didnt know they had and then match it up with Pokie who was sitting in the pokie already.

Larsen: They used DNA testing on this case in 2000. Get your facts straight.

Reply: See answer above. Yes, it took 2-years to get all this material tested, matched and to have Pokie charged and convicted with Poole's murder. You think everything happens in a week, a microcosm? You are truly being pedantic and stupid.
It took 2 years. You have not read the case and dont know the timelines. Its also irrelevant, pedantic misdirection on your part. Just about everyoine save your fans can see through these charades you play.

Larsen: Learn what? Since we cannot tell which psychics are genuine, how could the police know it?

Reply: Where did I say anything about psychics? This is another example of miscomprfehension and misattribution due to excessive brain density. Stumpy and the BBC say Pokie Ruark and Poole were lovers. It took them 15 years to establish that.
This is unreasonable and illogical. They know, and Stumpy knows what they should have done back in 1983 to establish this if it were true. I am STILL waiting for Stumpy's reponse on this.

Larsen: Actually, it is very much on the spot: Not one out of 600 psychics could find Elizabeth Smart. No psychic has ever found anyone, Steve. The police complain that the psychics waste their time.

Reply: If thats true so does anyone calling in an anonymous ill founded tip to Crimestoppers or AMW. There are some police officers who admit the value of psychic evidence. You know who they are since they have been discussed before and then slandered and libeled by closed minded cynics such as yourself. I have to remain open minded about these possibilities.

Larsen: That's post-hoc reasoning, Steve. Far from what a true skeptic would engage in.

Reply: It would be if it were not for the fact that Ruark was in jail for a crime comitted while he was free after being given a walk by Lundy back in 1983. His criminal record is, well, a matter of record.



Larsen: As usual, you back down when it comes to evidence.

Reply: We have preliminary access through Det. Batter's report in the Police Federation Journal. Have you read it? We will all have additional confirmation on further publication. You don't need anything froim me. I can read, can you?

Larsen: You have, on the other hand, not spared your critical comments of the police.

Reply: Only because now that this has "come out" people like Stumpy are covering their asses and the cover-up is often worse than the original lapse in procedure. The cover-up in this case is the pap handed to the BBC by police that Pokie and Poole were lovers. A sudden revelation after nearly 2 decades. Indeed. What a bunch of crap. If they couldn't figure it out then, it makes no sense how they could figure it out now. DNA in semen does not tell them how it got where it was or if it was the result of a consensual act or rape. The victim was found dead.....I am afraid any reasonable person has to fault their ikll founded logic on this.
I am surprised Mark Tidwell who is now doing forensic DNA work doesn't weigh in on this. Mark? Can DNA tell the police if it was due to rape or consensual sex?



Reply: "Discussed"? How close do you work together with Keen?

Reply: How is this relevant? Are you writing a book or something? I don't work with Keen but he is very courteous and answers all polite requests for information. He is visiting the NYC next week and I hope to find time so we can meet briefly.

I will not discuss the balance of your inane remarks on the Smart case because as I have said all the data is not in yet. Whatever I gave I got from news reports of her discovery and information supplied by psi-tech regarding geography to search. The rest of your remarks were answered in the original statements and do not merit any further responses. Some don't make any sense. I said I was waiting for Stumpy to report on the national UK guidelines. What was your brillant response to that? Doesn't deserve any more effort so go on and keep talking to yourself.

[Yahweh]

I havent read any of this thread... because it's so long and might damage my central nervous system but do people actually take Police Psychics seriously. I would imagine that they would be no more liable in court as evidence than hypnotism.

[Lucianarchy]

Hi, officer Stumpy.

Do you know 'Hannibal'? He was another claimed 'police officer' who appealed to his own authority and who disappeared when he was shown to be misleading people on this forum. I was always skeptical of of Hannibal due to his avatar of Hannibal Lecter, the serial killer, I could never understand why a real police officer would do something so distasteful. Anyway, I know you're still reading the replies to the thread since Friday evening and wondered when you're going to supply us with the guidelines for dealing with psychic you promised. Any news?

BTW, and this is for all cynicss, if a psychic, as accurate as evidenced by The Police Federation, offered to help find someone close to you who was missing, would you refuse their help? If so, why?

[Stumpy]

Luci

I have been sent to Germany on business at short notice. I haven't had the opportunity since Friday night to access the 'net. I fully intend to follow up my stated intentions re:Police guidelines.

Steve

The last correspondence i had with you included my query whether there was any further details regarding the named psychic's involvement in the Irish investigation. You responded by compromising that named persons safety. It is totally irresponsible to disclose in any forum that an individual is a registered informant of a Police agency. You have now jeopardized that individual's safety irregardless of whether they are an informant or not, I suggest you urgently take steps to remove that offending reference via the board mods.

Stumpy

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

BTW, and this is for all cynicss, if a psychic, as accurate as evidenced by The Police Federation, offered to help find someone close to you who was missing, would you refuse their help? If so, why?

Yes, because I would rather the police used proven techniques to find them, rather than waste vital time using some dimwit who "sees water" or "a tree"....

And as you well know, not a single murderer has ever been caught using a psychic. A 14 year old girl was murdered near my parents home in Scotland last week. If this psychic is as "accurate" as you claim perhaps she can get in touch with the dead girl and ask her who murdered her. Dalkeith police station would like to know who the murderer is. The phone number is 0131-654-5576 or you can go to Lothian and Borders Police website here (http://www.lbp.police.uk/Appeals/Midlothian_Murder/index.htm)

Thanks for your help..:rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy
Luci

I have been sent to Germany on business at short notice. I haven't had the opportunity since Friday night to access the 'net.

Stumpy
:jaw:
Really?! Then I believe someone else must have been using your 'stumpy' logon to view this thread on Saturday morning!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


Yes, because I would rather the police used proven techniques to find them, rather than waste vital time using some dimwit who "sees water" or "a tree"....



Then you haven't read The Police Federation evidence we have discussed here. "Pokie". Like I said, "as accurate" as.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Stumpy
I fully intend to follow up my stated intentions re:Police guidelines.



Nil desperandum.

[SteveGrenard]

Steve

Stumpy: The last correspondence i had with you included my query whether there was any further details regarding the named psychic's involvement in the Irish investigation. You responded by compromising that named persons safety. It is totally irresponsible to disclose in any forum that an individual is a registered informant of a Police agency. You have now jeopardized that individual's safety irregardless of whether they are an informant or not, I suggest you urgently take steps to remove that offending reference via the board mods.


I am glad you agree that the named person is a registered police informant albeit a psychic and I would remove her name from the post as you suggest save for the fact her name is already out there as is her having relocated. In any case, she does not work on violent crimes such as murders etc. The source of any criticism against her, if you read between my lines, was the fact that Eire is a theocracy of the Church of Rome who look askance at medium- ship as some sort of summoning of demons and devils.
This is even more inane since the official church position today is that they are NOT devil worshippers; but fundamentalists continue to consider them in this light. My experience with fundies is that they cajole mediums and those who consult them to repent and they will pray for them. I always thank them for their grave concerns on my behalf as well as their prayers.

This person also deals now in finding lost objects and certainly she is not the only medium in Eire. I hope you do not think she will be burned at the stake as a witch by the Church. My information was public, however from another source and his concern was not for the medium but rather for the people who used her talents to find the aforesaid missing objects. He felt giving details of these cases would unfairly compromise or give publicity to private persons who have a right to that privacy. The medium in question is no longer a private person due to the Police Federation article and it is well known she relocated from England to Ireland. I will not say where and she does have a common Irish name.

[FutileJester]

Luci,

Your response to me earlier left me unclear on your position. I've since asked for some clarification but I'm afraid on-topic posts don't seem to be popular here right now. I'm trying to come at this with no preconceptions, and I would honestly like to know your opinion.Why do you think there are no court transcripts revealing defense questioning of police about their successful use of psychics in criminal cases?

By analogy, imagine that hearsay evidence points police to an individual. A search warrant is issued and hard evidence turned up. In court, the hearsay evidence itself would not be presented, but a defense lawyer could (and should) challenge the reasons for issuing the warrant. If it was found, for instance, that the warrant was issued because an officer illegally broke in to find the evidence that led to the warrant, then the entire evidence chain could be thrown out, no matter how incriminating. So it should come up in court that hearsay evidence led to the warrant. Likewise, it should come up if psychic evidence were similarly used.

Many psychics claim to have helped solve criminal cases that have gone to trial. I cannot see how they could help in any substantive way without this showing up in court transcripts. Where are these transcripts?

[SteveGrenard]

Stumpy:

Further to your concern for Holohan's well being as a registered police informant, I think you should know that the Poole murder was the only murder case she ever gave information on. You should know that at the time she was not a medium in a professional sense and just claimed to have had Poole's spirit come and talk to her about it. She gave her information to the police, 120 individual pieces of information, which were all ignored at the time but which later analysis demonstrated were all true.

She does not work on murders or any violent or felonious crimes . The above was the first and last murder she gave information on. She relocated back to Eire where she became a medium who is consulted in finding missing objects. I understand she has a good track record at this. I am amused by the fact that you asked about her abilities after the Ruark case and got an answer which you now want stricken from the record here. Do I smell a Larcenism here?

The only possible threat to her would be Pokie Ruark who is in gaol for life in England. He was a low-life and presumably had few or any friends. They would have no reason to seek revenge on her since her testimony did not put Pokie in the pokey. Nor did any testimony or investigation by the police contribute to his conviction for this murder. Only Watson and Crick and all the DNA and PCR researchers who came after them can be blamed by Pokie for his undoing.

[SteveGrenard]

In the United States warrants are issued for probable cause.
Probable cause includes information from an informant, either known, anonymous or a protected confidential informant., including paid or unpaid and those who do this to get off from their own problems with the police. There is no discounting that such an informant, anonymous or known, can't be a psychic. These warrants hold up in court on this basis so I see no validity to the scenario suggested above.

The uncorroborated tetsimony of an informant, like that of a psychic, is generally not admissible and their information is used only so the police can obtain warrants and conduct investigations which do lead to admissible, preferably physical evidence as well as acceptable corroborated testimony. Obviously what a psychic says cannot be corroborated by a second party so their testimony is never admissible.

Evidence obtained without a warrant or probable cause is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree and can and often is thrown out.
An anonymous tipster is not considered to be such a fruit.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by FutileJester
Luci,

Your response to me earlier left me unclear on your position. I've since asked for some clarification but I'm afraid on-topic posts don't seem to be popular here right now. I'm trying to come at this with no preconceptions, and I would honestly like to know your opinion.

I don't really have much of an opinion on psychics solving crimes. It would be impossible to prove in Court, because there is currently no known scientific explantion for being 'psychic'. However, a psychic can contact the police and have their information classified as 'anonymous'. The police can and do act on anonymous information, which is a good thing, I hope you agree. Because if the psychic had given that information anonymously, then perhaps the police could have acted sooner.

It is perhaps a shame that the sort of prejudice we see from the cynical skeptics, is the sort of prejudice which perhaps stops many other people like the psychic evidenced by The Police Federation from coming forward.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
BTW, and this is for all cynicss, if a psychic, as accurate as evidenced by The Police Federation, offered to help find someone close to you who was missing, would you refuse their help? If so, why?

If I knew a psychic were truly accurate, then yes I would want their help. The difficulty is in knowing which one is accurate, wouldn't you say? From the Police Federation article you linked:
During the course of the investigation, we received several calls from people offering their services as psychics, but they talked nonsense

In the absence of confirming evidence, how do we tell what is 'nonsense'?

Add to that the problem that these powers come and go. In this interview with Christina Holohan (http://archives.tcm.ie/carlownationalist/2001/09/17/story109.asp), it is claimed:
Christina “has never allowed another spirit get as close as that of Jacquie because it had a terrible effect on me, that is not to say that I cannot help the police when it comes to missing people, I would gladly do what I could.”
In other words, there was no history of criminal cases she solved before that could lead a rational person to decide that she, of all psychics, was the most accurate. And afterwards, there was no way to replicate the feat. Even assuming that I completely believe that there are some helpful psychics out there, how can I possibly choose from the many contradictory choices offered?

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In the United States warrants are issued for probable cause.
Probable cause includes information from an informant, either known, anonymous or a protected confidential informant., including paid or unpaid and those who do this to get off from their own problems with the police. There is no discounting that such an informant, anonymous or known, can't be a psychic.
Agreed. Probable cause is a less stringent standard than admissable evidence, and I have no reason to suggest that a psychic informant might not in some cases be considered probable cause.

These warrants hold up in court on this basis so I see no validity to the scenario suggested above.
(Emphasis mine) If they hold up in court, that means that they have been challenged and upheld. I'm not arguing either way for whether or not such a warrant would be valid. I'm only saying that at least some must have been challenged in court by defense counsel.

The uncorroborated tetsimony of an informant, like that of a psychic, is generally not admissible and their information is used only so the police can obtain warrants and conduct investigations which do lead to admissible, preferably physical evidence as well as acceptable corroborated testimony. Obviously what a psychic says cannot be corroborated by a second party so their testimony is never admissible.

Yep. But is it not true that, if incriminating evidence was turned up by a warrant, defense counsel should question the probable cause for that warrant and should be told that it was an anonymous tipster, a protected informant, a psychic, or whatever?

Evidence obtained without a warrant or probable cause is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree and can and often is thrown out.

And this is why warrants are challenged in court.

Anonymous tipster are not considered to be such a fruit.

True, but not very relevant for us unless all psychic help in criminal cases is through anonymous tips. And in any case, it's not about whether or not a 'fruit of the poison tree' issue exists; it's about the fact that transcripts should show the process of arguing about it. If there are, indeed, a number of criminal cases where a warrant was issued based on psychic evidence, and these warrants have never been challenged in court, then I'm extraordinarily surprised. Far more mundane issues regarding valid warrants are brought up all the time.